GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

A stark drop-off in shooting efficiency from his recent tear dragged his net impact into the red (-3.3) despite commendable defensive effort (+5.6 Def). He forced several contested floaters in traffic rather than keeping the ball moving against set defenses. His inability to find a reliable scoring rhythm stalled out multiple crucial possessions in the second half.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.6
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 31.7m -14.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.4

Surgical precision in the midrange and relentless rim pressure generated a monstrous overall impact (+15.4). He systematically dismantled his primary defenders without needing a single three-point attempt, dictating the tempo of the game entirely on his terms. Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+8.4 Def) perfectly complemented his offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +8.4
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 30.1m -14.1
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Draymond Green 24.6m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

Extreme offensive passivity allowed defenders to completely sag off him, clogging the paint and destroying the team's half-court spacing. While his backline communication and help-defense rotations remained elite (+4.8 Def), his reluctance to look at the rim severely handicapped the unit. The resulting stagnant possessions were the primary driver behind his surprisingly steep negative impact (-8.5).

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 24.6m -11.5
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quinten Post 24.1m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

A breakout performance was anchored by exceptional defensive positioning (+6.8 Def) and a willingness to confidently let it fly from deep. His floor-stretching presence pulled opposing bigs away from the rim, creating massive driving lanes that didn't show up in his personal stat line. Relentless activity on 50/50 balls (+3.0 Hustle) cemented his status as the most impactful frontcourt player of the night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 24.1m -11.3
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive rhythm and torpedoed his overall rating (-8.7). Rather than utilizing his elite athleticism to attack the rim, he settled for contested jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. A spirited effort in on-ball defensive isolation (+4.0 Def) was the only silver lining in an otherwise erratic performance.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 20.4m -9.6
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Moses Moody 23.0m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Constant off-ball motion and a willingness to let it fly from deep kept the defense stretched, yielding a solid positive rating (+3.8). Though his overall conversion rate was mediocre, the sheer volume of his perimeter attempts created vital driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Strong closeouts and disciplined weak-side help (+3.7 Def) ensured he was a net positive across his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 23.0m -10.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 19.8m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Shaking off a brutal shooting slump, he found alternative ways to impact winning by dialing up his off-ball activity and defensive intensity (+4.3 Def). Even with his three-point stroke still missing in action, his relentless cutting and transition sprinting (+4.0 Hustle) bent the defense favorably. A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections in the third quarter highlighted his newfound commitment to the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 19.8m -9.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 19.5m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Aggressive straight-line drives and excellent finishing through contact fueled a massive surge in his offensive production. By completely abandoning the perimeter to attack closeouts, he generated high-value trips to the rim that spiked his box score metric (+12.4). His decisive shot selection caught the defense backpedaling throughout his highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +42.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 19.5m -9.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 18.0m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Pristine perimeter execution and flawless defensive rotations (+6.6 Def) resulted in a remarkably efficient shift (+8.9 Total). He punished drop coverages relentlessly by burying catch-and-shoot daggers from the top of the arc. His veteran savvy in sniffing out opponent baseline actions completely neutralized the opposing second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 18.0m -8.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Pat Spencer 16.2m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

An absolute terror in the passing lanes and on loose balls, he generated a massive positive impact (+5.9) without hitting a single field goal. His manic energy (+6.3 Hustle) completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow and generated multiple extra possessions. He proved that elite defensive anticipation (+6.7 Def) can entirely mask a nonexistent scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 16.2m -7.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Flawless execution as a roll man allowed him to maximize a very brief window of playing time (+3.7 Total). He set bone-crushing screens and dove to the rim with purpose, converting his limited looks with authority. Solid rim deterrence (+1.6 Def) ensured his short stint was highly productive on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.3
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 3.9m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A drastic reduction in minutes prevented him from establishing any of the scoring rhythm that highlighted his recent hot streak. He rushed a trio of perimeter looks in a desperate attempt to make an immediate impact, slightly dragging down his overall rating (-0.7). The lack of opportunity completely neutralized his normally potent offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Despite logging barely enough time to break a sweat, his trademark point-of-attack harassment (+2.6 Def) immediately tilted the floor. He completely abandoned his recent offensive aggression to focus purely on blowing up dribble hand-offs. A quick flurry of defensive stops ensured his brief cameo was a net positive (+1.7).

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 3.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 31.6m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-20.8

A brutal regression to the mean snapped his efficient shooting streak, dragging down his overall impact (-20.8) as he settled for heavily contested looks inside the arc. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions completely neutralized the spacing his perimeter makes provided. Despite decent recovery metrics, his inability to generate quality looks off the dribble cratered the unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 31.6m -14.8
Impact -20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Andrew Nembhard 29.7m
14
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.2

High-volume inefficiency from the perimeter severely capped his overall effectiveness despite strong point-of-attack metrics (+3.6 Def). He consistently bogged down the half-court offense by settling for contested pull-ups rather than probing the paint to collapse the defense. The playmaking flashes were ultimately overshadowed by the sheer number of wasted scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 29.7m -13.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ben Sheppard 26.9m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.9

Offensive rhythm completely abandoned him, resulting in a disastrous net rating (-15.9) fueled by forced jumpers early in the shot clock. He failed to adapt when his perimeter stroke went cold, compounding the damage with empty, stagnant possessions. A minor uptick in loose ball recoveries (+1.2 Hustle) did virtually nothing to stem the offensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 26.9m -12.6
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 21.6m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive positioning anchored his positive rating, as he consistently deterred drives and altered shots around the rim (+5.4 Def). While his perimeter shot selection was a bit ambitious, the gravity it provided opened up crucial cutting lanes for his teammates. His verticality in drop coverage proved to be the defining factor in stabilizing the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 21.6m -10.2
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Isaiah Jackson 21.0m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite rim-running and relentless activity on the glass fueled a massive positive swing (+10.8 Total) during his shift. He maintained his blistering finishing streak by strictly hunting high-percentage dump-offs and lobs in the paint. The combination of disciplined shot selection and excellent weak-side rim protection made him an overwhelming force inside.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 21.0m -9.9
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Stellar rotational awareness and physical post defense (+7.6 Def) kept his head just above water in the net ratings. However, his heavy-footed finishing around the basket and clunky perimeter attempts nearly erased all that goodwill. He survived purely on grit and rebounding positioning rather than any offensive skill execution.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 32.0m -15.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cody Martin 27.7m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

A masterclass in defensive disruption (+7.2 Def) was completely undone by his absolute hesitance on the other end of the floor. He passed up multiple open looks, stalling the offense and dragging his overall impact deep into the red (-7.7). His phenomenal effort in navigating screens and generating deflections couldn't salvage the zero-gravity spacing he provided.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 27.7m -13.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Methodical orchestration and pristine shot selection generated a highly efficient offensive stint, though his overall impact remained muted (+0.7). He was repeatedly targeted on switches defensively, giving back much of the value he created on the perimeter. A crucial stretch of stabilizing the tempo in the second quarter highlighted his steadying, if unspectacular, veteran presence.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.3m -9.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tony Bradley 16.3m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Imposing physical presence in the paint yielded a solid positive rating (+3.5), primarily through excellent vertical contests that altered opponent layup angles. His touch around the rim was surprisingly rigid, leading to several blown gimmes in the restricted area. Still, his ability to seal off driving lanes proved more valuable than the missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 16.3m -7.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A brief, disastrous stint saw him completely abandon the efficient shot profile that had defined his recent hot streak. Rushing three perimeter looks early in the clock instantly killed offensive momentum and tanked his rating (-5.7). He looked entirely out of sync with the pace of the game, failing to impact the floor in any meaningful secondary way.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -74.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 6.4m -3.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Defensive lapses in transition and poor navigation of off-ball screens dragged his brief appearance into negative territory (-3.4). While he capitalized on a couple of spot-up opportunities, he struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack. The inability to stay in front of his primary matchup quickly negated his brief offensive spark.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg -74.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 6.4m -3.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3