GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
24
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.6

Masterful offensive orchestration and relentless hustle (+6.5) fueled a dominant overall impact score (+15.6). He dictated the tempo entirely, consistently manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to create high-value looks for teammates. His physical point-of-attack defense (+3.5) perfectly complemented his offensive mastery.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 37.2m -16.7
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.4

A heavy diet of missed perimeter jumpers suppressed his net impact (+0.4) despite solid baseline box score metrics. He struggled to create separation against primary defenders, leading to forced looks late in the clock. Timely defensive rotations (+2.6) barely kept his overall rating above water.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 32.8m -14.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Draymond Green 31.4m
2
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

An abysmal 0-for-9 shooting performance completely negated his elite hustle (+8.9) and defensive contributions. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, completely stalling the team's half-court spacing. Despite flying around as a brilliant free-safety on defense (+4.1), his offensive zeroes dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/9 (0.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 31.4m -13.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 27.1m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Phenomenal defensive execution (+9.2) and high-motor hustle plays (+6.0) drove a highly positive impact despite a clunky shooting night. He was an absolute menace in the passing lanes, constantly blowing up opponent actions before they materialized. The sheer volume of extra possessions he generated far outweighed his inefficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 27.1m -12.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Quinten Post 16.7m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

A lack of defensive resistance (+0.3) and missed perimeter looks kept his overall impact slightly below neutral (-0.7). He struggled to contain quicker assignments in space, giving up easy penetration. While he provided some offensive spacing, the defensive trade-offs neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.7m -7.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Exceptional finishing around the rim and elite positional rebounding fueled a massive positive impact (+10.7). He consistently punished the defense with perfectly timed baseline cuts, exploiting sleeping weak-side defenders. This hyper-efficient offensive output completely masked a surprisingly quiet night in the hustle department (+0.6).

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 25.1m -11.1
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 19.5m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Offensive passivity and minimal defensive presence (+0.2) resulted in a highly damaging stint (-6.6). He floated on the perimeter without stressing the defense, effectively turning possessions into 4-on-5 scenarios. Failing to impact the game physically or statistically made him a severe liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 19.5m -8.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

A complete lack of defensive resistance (-0.0) dragged his overall impact into the red despite decent offensive efficiency. He routinely lost his man off the ball, surrendering easy backdoor cuts that negated his scoring output. Without generating any disruptive hustle plays, his minutes were a net negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.8m -8.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 16.6m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

A barrage of missed three-pointers neutralized the value he provided through active hustle (+2.8) and defensive positioning. His aggressive shot selection often bailed out the opposing defense early in the shot clock. Ultimately, his energetic off-ball movement perfectly balanced out his inefficient execution, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 16.6m -7.5
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 14.8m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A total absence of hustle plays (+0.0) and poor defensive containment (-0.2) undermined an otherwise efficient shooting cameo. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing straight-line drives to the rim. This defensive porosity ensured his minutes were a net negative despite making his open looks.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.8m -6.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 37.6m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Strong defensive rotations (+5.5) and active hustle metrics kept his overall impact in the green despite a clunky shooting night. A high volume of missed perimeter jumpers capped his offensive ceiling. His ability to disrupt passing lanes on the wing defined his two-way value in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 37.6m -16.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 36.3m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brutal volume of missed shots severely punished his overall impact score (-6.2) despite excellent defensive metrics. He forced contested looks early in the shot clock, completely disrupting the team's offensive flow. His aggressive point-of-attack defense (+6.4) was the only thing preventing a total statistical collapse.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 36.3m -16.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 30.7m
25
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Dominant interior scoring drove a massive box score rating (+15.6), but a lack of secondary hustle plays (+0.4) limited his overall net impact. He consistently collapsed the defense in the paint, generating high-quality looks at the rim. Occasional defensive lapses kept his total score from matching his raw offensive output.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.7m -13.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bryce McGowens 26.4m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Peripheral defensive contributions (+4.0) were completely overshadowed by an inability to generate meaningful offense. Stagnant off-ball movement and empty possessions dragged his net impact firmly into the negative. He struggled to stay attached to shooters around screens, giving back whatever value he provided as a help defender.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 26.4m -11.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 15.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating despite commendable effort on the other end. He salvaged some value through sheer energy, logging strong hustle (+3.5) and defensive positioning metrics. His inability to finish through contact inside rendered him a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -54.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 15.9m -7.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Peavy 31.7m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Solid rotational defense and active hands (+3.1) couldn't fully compensate for a highly inefficient offensive outing. Clanking multiple open looks from the perimeter allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. His baseline cuts offered occasional sparks, but the missed jumpers ultimately dragged his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 31.7m -14.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.7

An abysmal shooting performance featuring nine missed field goals absolutely cratered his net impact (-14.7). Without his usual defensive disruptiveness to fall back on (-0.8), his minutes were highly detrimental. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, compounding his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 30.6m -13.7
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Yves Missi 20.3m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-percentage finishing at the rim and excellent positioning drove a highly efficient stint (+3.9). He dominated the glass on both ends, creating crucial second-chance opportunities that boosted his box score rating (+9.1). His ability to alter shots as a weak-side helper cemented a very productive performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 20.3m -9.1
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevon Looney 10.4m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite positional awareness and stout interior defense (+3.9) generated massive value in limited minutes. He executed his role perfectly, setting bruising screens and securing contested 50/50 balls. This brief but highly impactful stint (+6.8) anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 10.4m -4.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0