GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 34.0m
11
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.1

Elite defensive anchoring (+7.4) and active communication were overshadowed by a negative total impact (-5.1). His struggles stemmed from inefficient perimeter shooting and the resulting offensive spacing issues when he operated off the ball. Despite generating typical hustle plays, defenders sagging into the paint bogged down the half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 34.0m -20.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.6

Overcame poor shooting efficiency by living at the foul line and orchestrating the offense, driving a massive +21.8 box score impact. His physical point-of-attack defense (+6.6) completely stifled his primary matchup. The ability to generate value through foul-drawing and defensive intensity defined his highly positive night.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 33.9m -20.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 33.6m
38
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Unprecedented perimeter gravity and elite shot-making fueled a stratospheric box score rating (+27.5). He completely broke the opposing defensive scheme by hitting highly contested looks off movement. This offensive masterclass easily offset his relatively quiet defensive and hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 9/17 (52.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.1%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 33.6m -20.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moses Moody 28.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

A sharp drop-off from his recent scoring explosion resulted in a severely negative total impact (-10.5). While his spot-up shooting efficiency was fine, defensive breakdowns and missed rotations compromised the team's structure. His inability to contain dribble penetration negated any value provided by his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 28.4m -17.4
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Will Richard 9.3m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Relentless energy defined this stint, as an elite hustle rating (+7.1) drove his positive net impact. He created multiple extra possessions by diving for loose balls and crashing the glass hard. This high-motor activity perfectly masked a very low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +7.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 9.3m -5.7
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

A perfectly balanced two-way performance was highlighted by excellent defensive instincts (+6.5) and high-level hustle (+5.5). He consistently made the right read as a secondary creator, keeping the offensive flow humming. Winning the 50/50 balls and executing crisp rotations defined his highly impactful stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 29.9m -18.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 18.1m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Masterful positional defense (+9.0) anchored his positive impact, as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions. He supplemented this defensive clinic with timely floor spacing and smart connective passing. Operating as a low-maintenance stabilizer, his veteran savvy dictated the tempo of the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +9.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 18.1m -11.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

Highly efficient finishing in the dunker spot wasn't enough to prevent a negative overall impact (-3.3). His usually disruptive point-of-attack defense (+0.3) was neutralized by quick ball movement that kept him out of the play. The lack of standard transition steals limited his ability to swing the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 16.9m -10.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Quinten Post 16.9m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Strong interior defense (+7.8) salvaged a positive net rating despite a rough shooting night from beyond the arc. He consistently altered shots around the rim and secured tough defensive rebounds. His willingness to let it fly from deep kept the defense honest, even if the shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.9m -10.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Buddy Hield 15.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

A complete lack of offensive involvement tanked his total impact (-7.0) as he failed to register a single point. While he surprisingly provided positive defensive value (+3.9), his inability to stretch the floor rendered him a liability. The offense bogged down significantly with him acting as a non-threat on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 15.6m -9.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Logged a brief, neutral stint where his only contribution was a single efficient finish at the rim. He didn't have enough floor time to generate any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics. The game flow completely bypassed him during this short rotational window.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.3m -2.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 39.5m
26
pts
6
reb
13
ast
Impact
-0.5

Exceptional playmaking vision generated a strong box score rating, but inefficient perimeter shooting dragged down his overall net impact. He provided solid defensive resistance (+5.0) and active hands, yet the missed jumpers prevented a positive total score. Operating as a primary initiator yielded mixed results due to the lack of scoring gravity when defenders went under screens.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 39.5m -24.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Toumani Camara 33.9m
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite shot selection and perimeter efficiency drove a massive box score impact (+19.9). He supplemented his offensive firepower with high-motor activity, generating extra possessions through sheer hustle (+5.7). The only blemish was a slight negative defensive rating, likely stemming from getting caught on screens during perimeter rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 33.9m -20.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 30.9m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.9

Impact plummeted due to a complete offensive freeze-out, missing every single attempt from the floor. His inability to generate efficient offense tanked his overall value (-17.9) despite respectable defensive metrics (+4.8). This stark deviation from his usual scoring rhythm forced Portland into late-clock, isolation-heavy possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 23.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 30.9m -18.7
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 27.1m
22
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.0

Dominated the interior with a breakout offensive performance that shattered his recent scoring averages. His massive +20.0 total impact was anchored by elite rim protection (+7.5 Def) and highly efficient finishing around the basket. Thriving as a lob threat and putback menace, he completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +25.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 27.1m -16.5
Impact +20.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 23.2m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

An unexpected scoring outburst fueled a positive box score contribution, completely defying his recent offensive struggles. However, his overall impact (-5.8) suffered due to underlying systemic breakdowns when he was on the floor. While the spot-up shooting was a revelation, his defensive positioning on the weak side remains a work in progress.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.2m -14.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 37.6m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Unrelenting perimeter aggression yielded a massive scoring spike, driving a highly positive box score metric (+21.0). The sheer volume of deep attempts stretched the defense thin, though the heavy shot diet barely kept his total impact in the green (+1.2). This feast-or-famine approach defined the offensive flow whenever he had the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 37.6m -23.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Anchored the paint with elite rim protection (+9.7 Def), completely deterring drives into the restricted area. His highly efficient, low-usage finishing continued a streak of reliable interior execution. This defensive dominance and selective shot profile resulted in a stellar +8.6 total impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.7
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 20.5m -12.5
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
Kris Murray 16.6m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Passive offensive involvement severely limited his overall effectiveness, resulting in a negative net impact. He managed to salvage some value through disciplined defensive rotations (+2.4) and active pursuit of loose balls (+3.2). Ultimately, his reluctance to hunt shots allowed defenders to sag off and clog the spacing for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 16.6m -10.2
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made his mark entirely on the defensive end (+3.2) despite a complete absence of offensive usage. His length and lateral quickness disrupted passing lanes during a short rotational burst. This specialized defensive deployment kept his total impact positive even without attempting a single shot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 6.4m -3.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 2.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A fleeting appearance resulted in a negative total impact entirely driven by defensive lapses (-1.2). He failed to register any tangible offensive or hustle metrics during his short stint. Getting targeted in quick pick-and-roll actions defined his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -43.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that yielded negligible statistical output. A single missed shot accounted for the slight negative box score dip. He maintained baseline defensive positioning during his limited run without altering the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 1.8m -1.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0