GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 34.3m
12
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.6

Serving as the ultimate connective tissue, his elite defensive communication and rebounding fueled the transition attack. Even with a modest scoring output, his ability to orchestrate the offense from the high post kept the team in rhythm. Hustle plays and timely deflections were the true drivers of his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +7.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 34.3m -17.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Stephen Curry 32.8m
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.9

Uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc and forced passes into traffic resulted in a disastrous overall rating. The offense bogged down during his minutes as opponents aggressively trapped him and forced the ball out of his hands. Missing open looks he normally buries allowed the opposition to build significant momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 32.8m -16.8
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 7
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.7

Surgical precision in the mid-range and elite foul-drawing manipulation dictated the entire tempo of the game. He anchored the offense by consistently making the right read against double-teams, resulting in a stellar box-score impact. His physical drives to the basket repeatedly compromised the opposing interior defense.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 32.6m -16.7
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moses Moody 30.1m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A sharp regression from his previous offensive explosion, primarily caused by rushing perimeter jumpers against tight closeouts. While he crashed the glass effectively, the lack of scoring punch stalled the secondary unit's momentum. Inability to find a rhythm from deep ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 30.1m -15.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Will Richard 28.0m
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

Exploded for a massive scoring surge driven by excellent off-ball movement and decisive cuts to the rim. His two-way impact soared thanks to disruptive perimeter defense that generated live-ball turnovers. Stepping into open looks with confidence completely changed the geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.0m -14.3
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite efficient scoring, defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to navigate screens, allowing open perimeter looks that negated his offensive contributions. A noticeable drop in his usual playmaking aggression limited the team's ceiling during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 28.4m -14.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Quinten Post 21.6m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.4

Anchored the reserve unit with phenomenal rim protection and disciplined verticality in the paint. His willingness to stretch the floor, even with mixed shooting results, pulled opposing bigs away from the basket. Defensive metrics skyrocketed as he consistently deterred drives and secured contested rebounds.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.5
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 21.6m -11.1
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 15.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Continued a brutal shooting slump by misfiring on every perimeter attempt, severely damaging the team's half-court spacing. Without his usual gravity, defenders freely sagged into the paint to choke off driving lanes. The complete lack of offensive production rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 15.1m -7.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a short stint, offering virtually no offensive creation. A forced shot and lack of defensive resistance led to a quick negative swing. He simply couldn't replicate the productive minutes he had provided in recent outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -65.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 6.5m -3.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 5.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

A disastrous brief appearance defined by forced offensive actions and immediate defensive breakdowns. Rushing shots out of the flow of the offense led to empty trips and easy transition points for the opponent. His inability to stay disciplined on either end cratered his impact score almost instantly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -91.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 5.9m -2.9
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failed to leave any imprint on the game during a very brief appearance. A complete lack of offensive involvement and a missed opportunity at the rim resulted in a negative rating. The defensive energy he usually provides simply didn't materialize in this short window.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 4.9m -2.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 38.3m
10
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Inefficient finishing around the rim and a complete lack of perimeter gravity dragged his overall value into the red. Despite generating extra possessions through elite hustle metrics, his inability to capitalize on those chances stalled the offense. Opponents sagging off him completely disrupted the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 38.3m -19.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 37.3m
31
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.7

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by lethal perimeter shot-making and decisive reads out of the pick-and-roll. His massive scoring surge forced defensive adjustments that opened up passing lanes for his teammates. Elite point-of-attack defense perfectly complemented his breakout scoring night.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 37.3m -19.1
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts kept his overall impact slightly negative. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, the offensive stagnation during his minutes outweighed the stops. A lack of rim pressure ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 36.6m -18.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 34.6m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.7

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed results due to an uncharacteristically poor finishing rate in the paint. He salvaged a positive rating by operating as the central playmaking hub and dominating the defensive glass. His ability to create looks for others masked the damage of his own missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 34.6m -17.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 23.6m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Tremendous energy and loose-ball recoveries were entirely undone by offensive black-hole tendencies. Forcing up low-quality looks early in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His hustle metrics popped, but the lack of scoring touch made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +7.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 23.6m -12.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Shot selection was the glaring culprit behind a deeply negative rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely erased his commendable hustle and on-ball pressure. Operating as a volume shooter rather than a connector derailed the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 29.4m -15.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 18.1m
6
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.0

Utterly dominated the interior during a highly condensed, hyper-efficient stint. Controlling the defensive glass and altering shots at the rim generated a massive per-minute impact advantage. His vertical gravity on rolls to the basket bent the defense even when he didn't touch the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 18.1m -9.3
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Perfect execution on his limited offensive touches couldn't mask defensive vulnerabilities during his short time on the floor. Blown assignments and late rotations allowed easy opponent scores, dragging his total impact into the negative. He struggled to stay in front of quicker matchups on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 11.9m -6.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 10.2m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Capitalized perfectly on a brief rotational opportunity by taking only high-percentage looks. Kept the ball moving without forcing the issue, resulting in a clean, mistake-free stint. His steady hand provided a stabilizing presence when the primary ball-handlers rested.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 10.2m -5.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0