GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Will Richard 27.2m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Poor shot selection and a high volume of misses dragged down his net score despite respectable defensive and hustle metrics. He forced contested looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. The stark inefficiency ultimately outweighed his solid effort as an on-ball defender.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 27.2m -15.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 27.0m
13
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

A massive step back from his recent explosive scoring, with his overall impact cratering to a team-worst -10.5. Despite decent shooting splits, his minutes were plagued by poor spacing and a failure to execute offensive sets. Getting caught out of position in transition defense repeatedly fueled opponent scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 27.0m -15.4
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Elite hustle plays (+6.5) and highly disruptive perimeter defense could not fully compensate for a disastrous shooting performance. He generated extra possessions through sheer grit, but repeatedly squandered them with forced floaters and contested drives. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips ultimately tipped his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 26.3m -15.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gui Santos 26.2m
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

A drastic reduction in offensive volume completely neutralized his value, snapping a streak of highly productive outings. While he battled fiercely on the glass and provided strong weak-side help (+4.8 defense), his hesitancy to attack the rim stalled the offense. The inability to command defensive attention as a scorer ultimately resulted in a heavily negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 26.2m -14.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Quinten Post 22.8m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Falling in love with the three-point shot proved costly, as a barrage of perimeter misses tanked his offensive efficiency. His lack of defensive deterrence (-0.1) compounded the issue, allowing opponents to score easily inside. Settling for low-percentage pick-and-pop looks instead of rolling to the basket defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 22.8m -13.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 31.2m
3
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-11.6

Elite playmaking vision was completely overshadowed by an inability to score, rendering him a massive negative overall (-11.6). Defenders simply went under every screen, daring him to shoot, which derailed the team's pick-and-roll attack. Despite commendable effort tracking back on defense, his offensive predictability crippled the unit.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 31.2m -18.0
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Overcame a horrific finishing night around the rim by dominating the dirty work areas. His +5.3 defensive impact and relentless activity on the offensive glass (+4.2 hustle) ensured his presence was a net positive. Serving as an elite rim deterrent and keeping possessions alive defined his highly impactful, albeit ugly, performance.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -44.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 24.2m -13.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Buddy Hield 23.7m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Broke out of a severe shooting slump, but defensive lapses and poor off-ball positioning kept his total impact negative. While his perimeter gravity finally returned, he gave up too many straight-line drives on the other end. The inability to stay in front of his man negated the value of his timely floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 23.7m -13.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Al Horford 15.8m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.8

A masterclass in veteran efficiency, combining flawless shot selection with elite positional defense (+5.4). He punished defensive drops with precision perimeter shooting while anchoring the backline without committing fouls. His ability to dictate the tempo and execute flawlessly in the pick-and-pop defined this highly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 15.8m -9.0
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

An uncharacteristically flat performance where a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) destroyed his usual value proposition. Without generating deflections or transition opportunities, his severe offensive limitations were glaringly exposed. Missing wide-open corner threes allowed the defense to completely ignore him, stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 15.6m -8.9
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Massive box score creation (+20.2) was heavily diluted by a lack of defensive resistance and low-energy hustle metrics. While his unguardable isolation scoring kept the offense afloat, he gave a significant portion of that value back by resting on the defensive end. The stark contrast between his elite shot-making and passive off-ball defense defined his polarizing net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 28.2m -16.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 26.2m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.0

Elite two-way showing fueled by exceptional hustle metrics (+8.4) and lockdown perimeter defense. His highly efficient spot-up shooting provided a massive offensive boost compared to his recent slump. The ability to blow up screens while punishing defensive rotations defined his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg +57.9
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +8.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 26.2m -15.0
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 26.1m
15
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.8

Completely anchored the interior with a staggering +16.7 defensive impact score driven by elite rim deterrence. His verticality altered countless attempts in the paint, while his highly efficient roll-man finishing maximized offensive possessions. This performance was defined by his sheer dominance in drop coverage and ending opponent possessions on the glass.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +16.7
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 26.1m -14.9
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Jalen Williams 20.6m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite generating solid baseline offensive value, a slight negative defensive impact (-0.5) dragged his overall net rating into the red. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, neutralizing the value of his mid-range creation. A lack of disruptive plays off the ball ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.6m -11.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 14.2m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Offensive production completely vanished compared to his recent averages, but relentless point-of-attack defense (+7.7) kept his overall impact firmly positive. He navigated screens flawlessly to disrupt opposing ball-handlers. His willingness to sacrifice his body for loose balls (+3.6 hustle) salvaged what was otherwise a brutal shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 14.2m -8.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Continued his streak of efficient shooting, but his overall impact slipped into the negative due to broader lineup struggles during his shifts. While his individual hustle and floor-spacing were net positives, he struggled to navigate off-ball screens defensively. The scoring surge masked underlying issues with transition containment that ultimately cost the team.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 27.1m -15.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.1

Highly efficient scoring and solid defensive metrics were completely undone by hidden negative factors, likely rotational breakdowns or transition lapses. Even with excellent shot selection, his minutes coincided with opponent runs that tanked his total impact. The inability to string together consecutive stops while he was on the floor overshadowed his individual offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.1m -14.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

An absolute revelation compared to his recent struggles, driving a massive positive impact through hyper-efficient finishing and strong interior positioning. His +6.0 defensive score reflects excellent verticality and rebounding discipline that denied second-chance opportunities. Capitalizing on defensive mismatches in the post completely transformed his usual production profile.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 21.6m -12.3
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 19.9m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

A sharp drop in perimeter efficiency severely limited his offensive gravity, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Although he worked hard to generate extra possessions (+3.8 hustle), his inability to punish closeouts cratered his overall value. The performance was defined by missed rhythm jumpers that stalled the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 19.9m -11.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Completely invisible in the hustle categories, which is highly uncharacteristic and directly led to his negative overall impact. Without his usual diet of deflections and offensive rebounds, his low-usage offensive role became a liability. A lack of physical imposition on the wings defined this unusually passive outing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 10.7m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

A quiet but fundamentally sound shift where timely defensive rotations and steady ball movement kept his impact slightly above water. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead relying on smart positioning to generate value. His ability to execute the scheme without making costly mistakes provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +81.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 10.7m -6.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Maximized a brief appearance by launching confidently from deep, bending the defense and creating valuable spacing. His positive defensive impact (+2.3) came from staying disciplined on closeouts and avoiding cheap fouls. Providing instant floor-stretching gravity without compromising the defensive shell defined his highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0