GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
31
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.8

Completely dictated the geometry of the game, utilizing his unprecedented catch radius to finish over smaller defenders while simultaneously operating as an elite offensive hub. His towering presence in the paint altered countless shot trajectories, fueling a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.4m -20.0
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S De'Aaron Fox 35.5m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.8

Stagnated the offense with inefficient isolation possessions and an inability to convert from beyond the arc. The constant clanking of mid-range pull-ups fueled opponent transition opportunities, completely tanking his overall net impact despite decent effort on 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 35.5m -19.5
Impact -15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Devin Vassell 35.0m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Settled heavily for contested perimeter jumpers, which dragged down the overall efficiency of the starting unit. While his raw scoring numbers looked passable, the lack of rim pressure or secondary playmaking resulted in a significantly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 35.0m -19.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 31.2m
23
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.5

Bullied his way to the rim with relentless downhill drives, completely ignoring his perimeter struggles to generate high-percentage looks. Paired this interior aggression with exceptional connective passing and loose-ball recovery to drive a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 31.2m -17.2
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 25.1m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Operated effectively as a spot-up threat, punishing late rotations with decisive perimeter shooting. Exceptional weak-side defensive awareness kept his impact near neutral, though an inability to create his own shot limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +8.8
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.1m -14.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Overcame a clunky shooting night by leaning heavily into his physical tools on the defensive end. Crashing the glass and blowing up dribble hand-offs allowed him to remain a net positive when his offensive game abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.5m -13.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 22.2m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Feasted on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks, converting every look around the basket with fundamentally sound footwork. His flawless interior finishing anchored the second unit's offense, easily offsetting a few sluggish pick-and-roll defensive coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 22.2m -12.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Blended too much into the background during his minutes, failing to assert himself offensively despite converting the few looks he took. This extreme deference forced teammates into tougher late-clock situations, steadily bleeding away his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 20.0m -11.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Injected a quick burst of energy during a brief first-half stint before heading to the bench. Hitting his only perimeter look and keeping the ball moving resulted in a perfectly acceptable micro-shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 6.3m -3.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Burned through a quick rotational stint without finding the game's rhythm, missing his lone perimeter attempt. Offered zero resistance or hustle metrics to stabilize his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
28
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+23.9

Elite two-way execution defined this masterclass, driven by lethal perimeter efficiency that punished undersized defenders. His defensive metrics were equally staggering, consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions to generate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +29.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +42.5
Avg player in 33.8m -18.6
Impact +23.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 33.5m
46
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+25.5

Relentless offensive gravity warped the opposing defensive scheme, opening up the floor even when his deep ball wasn't falling at its usual clip. He supplemented the scoring load with active defensive hands and off-ball movement that kept the opponent in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 5/16 (31.2%)
FT 15/16 (93.8%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +35.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +44.0
Avg player in 33.5m -18.5
Impact +25.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 26.7m
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive value, allowing the defense to sag off and clog the paint. He tried to salvage his night through high-motor rotations and physical screen-setting, but the bricked jumpers were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +6.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 26.7m -14.7
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moses Moody 26.2m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

High-volume perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, masking a relatively one-dimensional outing. A complete lack of secondary hustle plays or defensive playmaking kept his overall net impact surprisingly grounded despite the scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 26.2m -14.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Will Richard 21.7m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Severe passivity on the offensive end cratered his overall impact, as he functioned primarily as a cardio guy in half-court sets. While he provided a moderate boost in hustle metrics, his inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to freely double-team primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Defensive tenacity and constant loose-ball pursuit kept him on the floor, but his offensive timidity dragged down his overall impact. Passing up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities stalled the half-court flow and allowed defenders to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 28.9m -16.0
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Al Horford 22.5m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided steady but unspectacular floor-spacing from the trail spot to keep the offense flowing. Solid positional defense and timely closeouts kept him at a neutral net impact, perfectly executing a low-mistake, low-usage role.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 22.5m -12.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Buddy Hield 15.5m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Failed to provide his signature floor-spacing, rushing his perimeter looks against tight closeouts. The lack of shooting gravity stalled second-unit possessions, though he did offer some surprising resistance at the point of attack defensively.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 15.5m -8.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Disrupted the opponent's backcourt rhythm with signature point-of-attack pressure and timely deflections. Capitalized on back-cuts and transition leaks to generate highly efficient offense without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 14.6m -8.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Struggled to find any rhythm or purpose in limited action, floating on the perimeter instead of attacking the rim. A few decent defensive rotations weren't enough to offset his complete invisibility on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 12.1m -6.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made the most of a brief rotational cameo by utilizing his size effectively in drop coverage. Keeping his hands vertical to deter interior drives resulted in a slight positive bump to his defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0