GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 34.3m
31
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.7

Immense perimeter gravity and lethal off-ball movement warped the opposing defensive scheme entirely, driving a massive positive impact. By constantly relocating and punishing late closeouts from deep, he created a cascading effect of open looks for his teammates. His relentless conditioning wore down the point-of-attack defenders during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 34.3m -19.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite defensive anticipation and high-motor hustle plays anchored a highly effective two-way performance. He completely neutralized his primary matchup on the wing, generating deflections that sparked easy fast-break opportunities. This relentless defensive pressure more than compensated for a relatively modest volume of field goal attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 33.5m -18.8
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moses Moody 25.0m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

An inability to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities severely hampered his overall effectiveness, dragging his net score into the negative. While he competed hard on the perimeter and generated solid defensive metrics, his offensive hesitation allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The sharp decline from his recent scoring tear left the second unit devoid of reliable floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 25.0m -13.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quinten Post 22.5m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

A sudden surge in pick-and-pop aggression stretched the opposing frontcourt and unlocked critical driving lanes for the guards. By confidently punishing drop coverages from beyond the arc, he forced defensive adjustments that shifted the game's momentum. This unexpected offensive outburst provided a crucial secondary scoring punch when the primary actions stalled.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 22.5m -12.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 12.1m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Surgical execution as a short-roll hub maximized his value during a highly condensed stint on the floor. He quickly diagnosed defensive coverages, making rapid-fire reads that led to high-percentage looks at the rim. Even in limited action, his vocal backline orchestration stifled multiple opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -61.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 12.1m -6.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Smothering screen navigation and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a dominant defensive showing that drove his high net rating. He broke out of a prolonged shooting slump by confidently stepping into rhythm looks off defensive rotations. This combination of lockdown perimeter containment and timely shot-making completely flipped the momentum of the backcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 24.6m -13.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.9

Tentative drives and a stark reluctance to absorb contact at the rim severely muted his offensive influence. He frequently picked up his dribble prematurely against switching defenses, short-circuiting the team's half-court flow. Without his usual aggressive slashing to collapse the defense, his playmaking became entirely predictable.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 24.1m -13.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Relentless crashing of the offensive glass and chaotic defensive energy secured extra possessions that buoyed his overall value. He thrived in the dunker spot, utilizing timely baseline cuts to exploit sleeping weak-side defenders. This gritty, blue-collar effort perfectly complemented the team's perimeter-oriented attack.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 20.9m -11.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Will Richard 17.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

A glaring lack of rotational awareness on defense allowed a steady stream of uncontested backdoor cuts, tanking his overall impact. Even though he knocked down open perimeter looks at a respectable clip, his inability to stay attached to his man gave those points right back. The defensive bleed was simply too severe to overcome his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 17.9m -10.0
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Explosive rim-running and decisive finishing in the pick-and-roll provided a massive jolt of vertical spacing. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, converting high-percentage lobs that energized the bench. This sudden surge in interior efficiency capitalized perfectly on the defensive attention drawn by the guards.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 16.9m -9.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 8.4m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

A complete failure to establish offensive rhythm during a brief stint snapped his recent hot streak and resulted in a negative net score. He looked rushed against physical perimeter pressure, forcing a pair of ill-advised attempts early in the shot clock. This abrupt disappearance of his usual scoring punch left the second unit scrambling for offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 8.4m -4.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 40.8m
35
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Relentless interior attacking drove a massive box-score valuation, but missed perimeter looks and defensive bleed limited his true impact. He settled for too many contested outside jumpers down the stretch instead of leveraging his size advantage inside. Consequently, a porous defensive rating offset much of his high-volume scoring output.

Shooting
FG 15/27 (55.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +25.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 40.8m -22.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 36.4m
22
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.6

Errant decision-making and forced attempts in traffic cratered his net score despite high-volume playmaking. He routinely bailed out the defense by settling for contested pull-ups early in the shot clock, bleeding away valuable possessions. Even with active hands generating hustle metrics, his erratic offensive pacing handed momentum straight to the opposition.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 36.4m -20.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Svi Mykhailiuk 27.9m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Spot-up efficiency kept his offensive baseline high, continuing a recent trend of sharp perimeter execution. However, his overall net impact settled near neutral because his defensive rotations failed to yield consistent stops against opposing wings. He operated strictly as a floor spacer, giving back most of his offensive value on the other end of the court.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 27.9m -15.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Passive offensive engagement led to a steep drop-off in scoring volume, tanking his overall net impact. Despite showing flashes of solid on-ball containment on the perimeter, his reluctance to attack closeouts stalled the second unit's momentum. The stark contrast from his usual aggressive slashing left the offense searching for a reliable initiator.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 27.2m -15.2
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kevin Love 24.3m
5
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

A stark inability to convert open pick-and-pop looks severely bottlenecked the half-court offense, resulting in a negative overall impact. While his defensive rebounding and positional awareness provided some stability, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. His continued shooting slump forced the unit into stagnant, late-clock situations.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 24.3m -13.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Tenacious point-of-attack defense defined this outing, actively disrupting the opponent's primary actions to drive a strong positive impact. He consistently fought through screens and applied ball pressure, generating transition opportunities that kept the offense afloat. This two-way effort perfectly balanced out a relatively quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Drastically reduced offensive involvement limited his overall influence, barely keeping his net impact above water. Although he maintained perfect efficiency when targeting mismatches in the post, a sudden lack of touches prevented him from dominating the game as he had in recent outings. He essentially operated as a bystander during critical stretches, neutralizing his usual scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 18.7m -10.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

A complete lack of secondary effort plays and poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his overall rating into the red. He repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses, extending a troubling trend of inefficient scoring. Without any hustle metrics to fall back on, his cold shooting directly fueled opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 16.9m -9.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Opportunistic cutting and decisive finishing around the rim yielded a modest but positive net impact during his limited minutes. While his overall scoring volume plummeted compared to recent performances, he avoided forcing bad shots and maintained offensive flow. His disciplined off-ball movement provided a reliable safety valve when primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 13.2m -7.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his brief stint on the floor, as he failed to register a single field goal attempt. Opposing defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, which destroyed the team's spacing and allowed easy double-teams on the ball handlers. This lack of aggression rendered his minor hustle contributions entirely moot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 12.4m -6.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1