GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 34.1m
31
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.5

Relentless off-ball movement completely fractured the opposing defense, generating an elite +12.5 net impact. Even with a mediocre night from beyond the arc, his brilliant shot selection inside the paint and gravity as a decoy dictated the entire game script.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 34.1m -18.2
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

A heavy reliance on isolation mid-range jumpers bogged down the offensive rhythm, leading to a surprisingly negative total impact. The sheer volume of missed, contested looks outweighed his ability to draw contact and get to the charity stripe.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 31.9m -17.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 29.4m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

Exceptional communication and physical screen-setting anchored his positive value, highlighted by elite hustle metrics. Stepping out to hit timely perimeter shots punished drop coverages, even if a few errant passes slightly capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 27.5m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Excellent on-ball pressure generated a stellar defensive score, but his inability to finish plays on the other end erased that value. Passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities disrupted the spacing, dragging his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.5m -14.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 18.8m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Maximized his backup center minutes by executing perfectly as a roll man and finishing with soft touch around the basket. His disciplined verticality at the rim helped secure a sturdy net positive impact without committing cheap fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 18.8m -10.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Catching fire from the corners completely transformed the geometry of the floor, punishing the defense every time they helped off him. This massive leap in shot quality and execution yielded a robust net rating, snapping him out of a brutal shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 25.3m -13.5
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

A stark regression in finishing through contact completely neutralized his offensive threat, leading to a dismal overall rating. While he competed hard on defensive switches, his hesitancy to attack closeouts stalled multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 19.1m
8
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.8

Veteran positioning and flawless pick-and-roll coverage anchored a brilliant defensive score. He served as the ultimate connective tissue on offense, making rapid reads that kept the ball humming and drove a highly efficient total impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 19.1m -10.2
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Gui Santos 18.3m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Crashing back to earth after a hot stretch, his lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. His active hands in the passing lanes weren't nearly enough to offset the spacing issues he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.3m -9.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Richard 13.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Floating around the perimeter without ever threatening the rim turned him into an offensive zero, severely handicapping the second unit. This extreme passivity allowed his defender to play free safety, directly causing his steep negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
15
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.0

A brutal disconnect between his individual counting stats and actual team success resulted in a staggering -9.0 net impact. Poor ball security and a tendency to over-dribble into contested gaps completely stalled the offense during his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 40.4m -21.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ryan Rollins 35.2m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls drove an elite hustle score, keeping possessions alive through sheer effort. However, his overall value flatlined near neutral due to erratic decision-making in the half-court that gave points right back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 35.2m -18.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
34
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Unstoppable rim pressure dictated the entire flow of the offense, generating massive value through sheer interior dominance. While a handful of live-ball turnovers slightly capped his ceiling, his ability to consistently collapse the defense defined the game.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 40.9%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +26.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 30.9m -16.5
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S AJ Green 29.6m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite finding his rhythm from the perimeter, his overall impact plummeted deep into the red (-6.1) due to costly defensive rotations and off-ball fouls. The spacing he provided was completely negated by giving up easy transition lanes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 29.6m -15.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 24.6m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Snapping out of a recent offensive slump, he provided crucial floor-spacing that pulled opposing bigs away from the paint. His strong hustle metrics and timely weak-side rim protection kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 24.6m -13.2
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Bobby Portis 23.4m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggling to find the mark on his usual pick-and-pop looks, his offensive inefficiency dragged down his overall rating. Even with active hands in the passing lanes, the empty offensive trips proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.4m -12.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.1

Cold shooting completely cratered his value, as a string of forced, contested jumpers allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game. Failing to bend the defense or contribute as a secondary playmaker left him as a massive negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 21.7m -11.7
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 20.6m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Capitalizing on favorable matchups, he delivered a highly efficient scoring punch without forcing bad looks. His disciplined shot selection and attentive closeouts on the perimeter fueled a robust positive net rating in limited action.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 20.6m -11.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gary Harris 13.6m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Total offensive invisibility forced his team to play four-on-five on that end of the floor. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, his refusal to look at the rim ultimately hurt the unit's spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 13.6m -7.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0