GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.8

A masterclass in pace and highly efficient shot creation systematically dismantled his primary defender. While his baseline impact was astronomical, the slight drop in total score suggests a few late-clock turnovers when the offense stagnated. Regardless, his ability to hit back-breaking contested jumpers dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 31.9m -15.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 30.6m
7
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.3

The defensive scheme thrived under his direction as he blew up multiple pick-and-rolls from the backline to generate immense value. His elite processing speed turned defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities, completely controlling the game's tempo. A textbook example of anchoring a team's success without needing a high volume of shots.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +9.9
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 30.6m -14.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Relentless offensive rebounding and diving for loose balls generated massive hustle numbers, but his tunnel vision on drives negated that effort. Forcing wild attempts into crowded paints tanked his efficiency and sparked opponent fast breaks. The raw athleticism was evident, yet a pattern of poor shot selection defined his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.1m -12.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephen Curry 25.5m
19
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.6

The sheer panic he induces off the ball warped the opposing defense, creating wide-open cutting lanes for his teammates. Uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc and a handful of ambitious passes slightly depressed his overall net rating. Still, constant motion and surprising defensive engagement kept his impact overwhelmingly positive throughout the night.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 25.5m -12.6
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quinten Post 24.6m
12
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Late closeouts were punished beautifully by his confident perimeter shooting to stretch the floor. His unexpected rim-protection and willingness to contest vertical challenges added a crucial layer to the second unit's defense. He proved to be a matchup nightmare during a pivotal second-quarter run by pulling the opposing center away from the basket.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +70.8
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 24.6m -12.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Exceptional anticipation on the defensive end allowed him to repeatedly blow up dribble handoffs and jump passing lanes. His ability to push the pace off live rebounds kept the opposing defense scrambling in transition. A highly intelligent performance was defined by making the right read almost every time down the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 26.6m -13.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Moses Moody 21.9m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

High energy metrics were fueled by his relentless hustle for loose balls, but erratic decision-making off the bounce resulted in costly empty trips. The negative net impact stems from forcing contested perimeter shots early in the clock instead of moving the ball. He needs to refine his shot selection to ensure his high energy translates into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.9m -10.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Al Horford 20.5m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Wide-open trail threes refused to fall, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter and clog the paint. Despite solid positional defense and good hustle metrics, the offensive spacing issues were too severe to overcome. He looked a step slow recovering to shooters, compounding his shooting woes during a rough third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 20.5m -9.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Buddy Hield 10.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Shooting gravity allowed him to operate mostly as a decoy, stretching the defense without forcing up bad looks. A couple of sloppy closeouts on the perimeter limited his defensive value, keeping his overall impact relatively muted. He played within the flow of the offense during a low-usage stint in the first half.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 10.2m -4.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Defensive breakdowns were quickly punished as he cut decisively to the rim for easy finishes. He maintained a solid defensive stance, refusing to bite on pump fakes during his limited minutes. A highly efficient, low-mistake outing perfectly executed the game plan during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -73.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 6.3m -3.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Deployed strictly as a point-of-attack disruptor, he struggled to navigate screens effectively during his brief run. The lack of any offensive involvement meant he couldn't offset minor defensive miscommunications that led to open looks. A highly specialized shift failed to yield the desired chaotic energy he usually provides.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -184.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 5.4m -2.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gui Santos 4.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

The speed of the game looked completely overwhelming for him, leading to wild shots and blown defensive rotations. His steep negative rating highlights a stint plagued by poor spacing and getting targeted on switches. A rough sequence of back-to-back errors quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by his failure to establish deep post position or set meaningful screens. A lack of rim deterrence allowed guards to finish easily over him, explaining the slight dip into the negative. He simply didn't play with enough force to make a positive imprint on the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Stagnant possessions and a forced, late-clock heave were the direct result of his struggles to initiate the offense. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack bled points during garbage time. A forgettable appearance was characterized by a lack of rhythm and defensive resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 31.9m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A heavy volume of isolation plays ended in contested step-backs, tanking his overall efficiency despite decent raw production. The steep drop into negative net impact suggests a slew of careless passing errors that ignited opponent fast breaks. While he showed surprising resistance defending the post, a pattern of offensive sloppiness negated those gains.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 31.9m -15.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kawhi Leonard 30.7m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Poor shot selection dragged down his overall effectiveness, as he settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers that tanked his efficiency. Despite generating solid defensive value through active hands in the passing lanes, the sheer volume of empty possessions limited his net impact. His inability to convert from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 30.7m -15.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 24.1m
14
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

He dominated the interior matchup by consistently sealing his man early in the shot clock to create high-percentage looks. His massive defensive rating was fueled by verticality at the rim, deterring multiple drives without committing cheap fouls. A highly efficient two-way anchor performance stabilized the entire rotation during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 24.1m -11.7
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Offensive spacing suffered immensely whenever he was on the floor due to a steady diet of bricked perimeter attempts. The massive gap between his baseline production and net impact points to costly live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense. He tried to compensate with high-energy closeouts, but a pattern of offensive dead ends was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 23.3m -11.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Rushed perimeter looks against tight closeouts resulted in a string of empty possessions that derailed the second-unit offense. The negative defensive impact compounded his shooting woes, as he repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts. He failed to find any rhythm in a brief stint defined by forced actions and poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 9.4m -4.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kris Dunn 25.8m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Aggressive point-of-attack defense yielded solid hustle metrics, but erratic decision-making on the other end was a major liability. The catastrophic net rating was driven by forced passes into traffic and out-of-control drives that resulted in costly turnovers. His inability to manage the game's tempo ultimately sabotaged a high-energy defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 25.8m -12.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
John Collins 23.2m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Valuable points were left on the board during key momentum swings because he struggled to finish through contact around the basket. Although his weak-side rim protection provided a notable defensive boost, costly offensive fouls and poor screening angles dragged his overall score down. The physical toll of his matchup inside neutralized his usual vertical spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 23.2m -11.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

His length disrupted passing lanes and generated a strong defensive score while operating primarily as a connective piece. However, his hesitancy to shoot open corner threes allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Veteran positioning kept his head above water, even during a stretch where his shot completely abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.8m -9.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Brook Lopez 19.1m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Heavily contested pick-and-pop threes routinely clanked iron, feeding directly into the opponent's transition game. His lack of mobility on the perimeter was exposed during a crucial second-half stretch, pulling his defensive impact below his usual standard. A glaring lack of offensive efficiency made him a net negative whenever he stepped outside the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 19.1m -9.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Paul 13.9m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

By completely abandoning his own scoring, he focused entirely on orchestrating the offense and directing defensive coverages. Elite defensive positioning and a knack for drawing timely charges salvaged what was otherwise a statistically barren outing. He managed to stay in the green by strictly avoiding mistakes and maximizing his teammates' touches during a critical fourth-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.9m -6.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 5.6m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive miscommunications left him caught out of position on several rotations, leading to easy dump-off passes for the opposition. A lack of assertiveness on the glass and minor spacing errors kept his impact firmly in the red during his brief stint. He needs to process the game faster to avoid being a half-step late on closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.6m -2.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Confident shot preparation provided a quick spark as he knocked down a timely perimeter look in limited action. He kept the ball moving without forcing the issue, avoiding the rookie mistakes that usually tank short-minute impact scores. A quiet but perfectly functional shift maintained the team's momentum during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.6m -2.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Setting hard screens and rolling to the rim created valuable gravity, even without logging a field goal attempt. He held his ground reasonably well in drop coverage, preventing straight-line drives to the basket. Doing exactly what was asked of a deep-bench big, he played a mistake-free stretch of basketball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely registering on the game's radar during a garbage-time cameo, he floated on the perimeter without demanding the ball. A minor defensive lapse or blown assignment likely accounts for the slight negative dip in his total score. He needs to show more urgency and hustle to make an impression in these fleeting opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +70.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0