GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 28.9m
13
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.9

Uncharacteristic defensive breakdowns overshadowed a surprisingly aggressive scoring night where he actively looked for his own shot. Opponents successfully dragged him out of the paint, neutralizing his typical backline orchestration and exposing the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 28.9m -15.6
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Consistent rim pressure and clever off-ball cutting generated a solid offensive baseline, though his overall impact hovered near neutral. He was targeted on a few key defensive switches late in the shot clock, bleeding points that offset his relentless rebounding effort.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 27.7m -15.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Will Richard 25.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Offensive passivity allowed the defense to ignore him, severely bogging down the team's half-court spacing. While he worked hard on the margins to keep plays alive, his reluctance to attack closeouts stalled multiple possessions and sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.4m -13.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for contested mid-range jumpers derailed his offensive rhythm and suppressed his overall value. He failed to generate his usual rim pressure, allowing the defense to stay home on shooters and stall the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moses Moody 14.6m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A brutal shooting regression from the perimeter completely tanked his value after a recent hot streak. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock fueled long rebounds and transition opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 14.6m -8.0
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 28.5m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Reckless shot selection from beyond the arc yielded a highly inefficient scoring bump that ultimately hurt the team's offensive flow. Clanking seven threes fueled opponent fast breaks, making his surprisingly active perimeter defense (+4.2) the only thing preventing a total metric collapse.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Exploiting baseline cuts and transition leaks allowed him to maintain a highly efficient scoring profile. However, uncharacteristic defensive lapses dragged down his overall impact as opposing guards consistently beat him off the dribble at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 26.5m -14.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Pat Spencer 21.2m
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.7

Relentless downhill attacking shattered the opposing defense, resulting in a massive scoring surge well above his seasonal norm. He consistently beat closeouts and finished creatively in the paint to anchor a highly productive, positive-impact bench unit.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 21.2m -11.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Quinten Post 18.3m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him nearly invisible on that end of the floor, allowing the opposing center to camp in the lane. He offered very little resistance defensively against the pick-and-roll, resulting in a notably negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 18.3m -10.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Seth Curry 17.9m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Clinical shot-making from all three levels punished defensive drop coverages and propelled a massive +10.7 impact score. He didn't waste a single movement, capitalizing on every sliver of daylight while adding active hands on the perimeter to round out a stellar shift.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 17.9m -9.8
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Forcing the issue in traffic resulted in a slew of heavily contested misses at the rim. His inability to finish through contact wasted multiple high-leverage possessions, though solid on-ball defensive sequences provided some silver lining to a frustrating stint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.8m -8.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
38
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.7

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency propelled an astronomical overall impact score. Punishing defensive rotations with lethal perimeter accuracy, he generated high-value looks every time he touched the ball and warped the entire defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.8%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +31.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 35.5m -19.4
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Williams 32.8m
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.9

Attacking the paint with sheer force fueled a massive scoring surge that anchored his positive net impact. Even with a completely broken outside stroke tonight, his ability to collapse the defense and finish through contact generated consistent high-value offense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 32.8m -18.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ajay Mitchell 32.1m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+10.3) defined a gritty performance where he did the dirty work to secure extra possessions. Though his usage was modest, his hyper-efficient shot profile capitalized on the few looks he took to perfectly glue the second unit together.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +10.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 32.1m -17.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 29.9m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Supreme spatial awareness drove a highly efficient scoring spike that overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. By picking his spots perfectly against drop coverage, he maximized his offensive possessions without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 29.9m -16.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 28.0m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite point-of-attack disruption (+9.9 Def) completely salvaged an otherwise brutal offensive outing where his jumper abandoned him. Poor perimeter spacing dragged down his overall ceiling, but relentless loose-ball recoveries kept him viable in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +5.9
Defense +9.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 28.0m -15.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

A complete vanishing act on the offensive end cratered his overall value despite excellent positional defense (+7.2). Passing up open looks led to a stagnant half-court flow, making his hard closeouts and rebounding insufficient to keep his impact out of the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 21.9m -11.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Continuing a stellar streak of highly efficient finishing, he provided a steady, reliable scoring punch that kept the offense humming. His value was further buoyed by active hands in passing lanes, resulting in a perfectly balanced, low-mistake outing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Isaiah Joe 17.9m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Lethal floor-spacing provided a strong offensive boost, but defensive liabilities ultimately dragged his net score down. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his near-flawless perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.9m -9.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Gritty screen-setting and loose-ball recoveries (+4.8 Hustle) nearly pushed his impact into positive territory. He took what the defense gave him offensively to snap a recent slump, though a lack of defensive playmaking left his overall footprint slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 17.4m -9.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized immediately during a brief garbage-time cameo by burying his only perimeter look. The instantaneous offense provided a massive per-minute spike to his metrics without him needing to force the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0