GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 29.2m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Chucking a heavy volume of three-point attempts with poor returns severely damaged his offensive value. Despite excellent hustle and strong defensive metrics, the sheer amount of wasted possessions offset his effort on the other end. The inability to attack closeouts and diversify his shot profile resulted in a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 29.2m -19.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 29.0m
31
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.2

Relentless perimeter pressure and high-volume shot-making dictated the entire flow of the game. He warped the defense with his movement, launching a barrage of threes to keep the opponent in constant rotation. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics amplified the damage of his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 6/17 (35.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 29.0m -19.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.9

Surgical precision in the mid-range and elite foul-drawing generated a massive positive impact. He manipulated matchups effortlessly, using his strength to create high-percentage looks and collapse the defense for kick-outs. A dominant defensive presence rounded out a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 28.6m -18.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 27.6m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Outstanding defensive anchoring salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive performance. His tendency to settle for contested perimeter shots dragged down his scoring efficiency. However, his rim protection and secondary playmaking kept his overall impact slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +9.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 27.6m -18.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gary Payton II 20.8m
9
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.2

Exceptional connective passing and timely cutting drove a highly productive stint. He operated perfectly within the offensive flow, generating easy looks for teammates while finishing his own chances at the rim. Solid point-of-attack defense complimented his surprising playmaking output.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 20.8m -13.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Buddy Hield 22.7m
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.1

A massive bounce-back performance was fueled by lethal catch-and-shoot execution. He punished defensive lapses in transition, spacing the floor perfectly to knock down a high rate of his perimeter looks. This sudden eruption of efficient scoring completely tilted the offensive math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 22.7m -14.9
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Richard 21.7m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Opportunistic perimeter shooting and active defensive rotations generated a slightly positive impact. He provided a necessary scoring bump by knocking down open corner threes when the defense collapsed. Solid hustle plays on the margins helped offset a few missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 21.7m -14.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite interior defense and strong rebounding fundamentals drove his positive impact. He broke out of a recent scoring drought by finding soft spots in the dunker spot, though his finishing was slightly erratic. His ability to alter shots at the rim provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 20.2m -13.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

A stark drop in scoring aggression limited his ability to influence the game offensively. While he provided strong perimeter defense, his reluctance to hunt his own shot led to stagnant half-court sets. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.8m -11.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 13.4m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Extreme passivity on offense created a void that tanked his overall rating. Failing to look for his shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes for others. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to bend the defense rendered his minutes highly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 13.4m -8.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 9.0m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Hyper-efficient finishing in limited minutes maximized his brief rotation stint. He capitalized on every touch, attacking closeouts decisively to maintain his streak of highly efficient shooting games. Quick decision-making and solid positional defense ensured he was a net positive while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -77.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 9.0m -5.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 37.8m
28
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite shot-making and high-level playmaking generated a massive box score impact. He dissected the defense with precision, balancing aggressive drives with sharp perimeter shooting to dictate the game's tempo. Strong defensive metrics further validated a masterful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.3
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 37.8m -24.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 32.7m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

High-volume inefficiency defined this outing, as chunking a massive number of missed field goals dragged down his net score. Despite active rebounding and decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions outweighed his secondary contributions. The pattern of forcing contested looks from deep severely limited Utah's half-court ceiling.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 32.7m -21.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 29.5m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Shot creation and defensive activity drove a positive overall impact. He consistently found his spots on the perimeter, hitting timely jumpers that kept the offense afloat. His two-way engagement, marked by strong hustle numbers, solidified a highly productive rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 29.5m -19.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 24.2m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Solid interior finishing and strong hustle metrics were overshadowed by hidden negative value that sank his total impact. While he dominated the glass in his minutes, defensive lapses or unrecorded mistakes likely bled points on the other end. A lack of offensive volume prevented him from outscoring the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 24.2m -15.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 20.1m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.0

Severe regression from his recent shooting efficiency tanked his overall impact. Missing every perimeter attempt created dead possessions that stifled offensive momentum. His minor defensive contributions weren't nearly enough to offset the poor shot selection and inability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 20.1m -13.0
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.9

Flawless shot selection and methodical distribution fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by taking only high-percentage looks around the basket. His connective passing and steady team defense ensured a positive net rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 23.6m -15.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped his overall rating despite respectable defensive effort. Failing to generate rim pressure or create advantages off the dribble led to stagnant possessions when he ran the point. The steep drop-off in scoring from his previous outing highlighted an inability to find an offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 21.2m -14.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Consistent scoring punch and confident perimeter shooting kept his impact firmly in the green. He capitalized on defensive rotations, hitting timely jumpers to sustain offensive momentum. Adequate defensive metrics ensured his scoring output translated directly to a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 18.5m -12.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

A complete offensive blank destroyed his net impact. Missing every shot attempt, mostly from beyond the arc, created empty trips that allowed the opponent to build momentum. While he tried to compensate with playmaking and hustle, the lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 17.0m -11.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Maintained his streak of highly efficient shooting by picking his spots carefully in the paint. His defensive positioning and strong work on the glass anchored the second unit effectively. Even with a drop in scoring volume from his recent average, his efficiency generated excellent value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 15.5m -10.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0