GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 31.9m
27
pts
0
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless off-ball movement and lethal perimeter shot-making completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme. He leveraged the panic he creates to orchestrate the offense, routinely finding cutters when two defenders jumped his screens. This dual threat of elite scoring gravity and high-level playmaking drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 31.9m -19.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Draymond Green 27.2m
11
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite surprising efficiency from beyond the arc, his overall impact was dragged into the red by a series of costly unforced passing errors. He repeatedly tried to thread impossible needles in transition, halting offensive momentum and fueling opponent fast breaks. His standard defensive communication was present, but it couldn't overcome the points given away via turnovers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 27.2m -16.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.8

Methodical foul-drawing and surgical mid-range execution drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He dictated the pace of the game in the half-court, consistently punishing mismatches on the block to collapse the defense. While his hustle metrics were muted, his sheer gravity and smart decision-making yielded a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 22.8m -13.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moses Moody 21.7m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A stark regression in scoring aggression left him floating on the perimeter, severely dampening his overall influence. He failed to attack closeouts with his usual vigor, resulting in stagnant possessions and late-clock bailouts. While he chipped in with decent hustle plays, his passive offensive approach ultimately dragged his net impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 21.7m -13.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 13.1m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Stretched the floor admirably as a trail big, utilizing his perimeter threat to open up driving lanes for the guards. His defensive impact was remarkably high, driven by excellent weak-side rotations and timely shot contests that deterred rim attempts. The willingness to let it fly from deep, even with a few misses, fundamentally changed the geometry of the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 13.1m -8.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Kept the offense humming with quick connective passing and opportunistic floaters in the lane. He consistently made the right read against trapping defenses, ensuring the ball found the open man without turning it over. A few timely charges drawn on the defensive end further solidified his positive overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +63.6
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.4m -13.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Busted out of a recent shooting slump by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down catch-and-shoot threes in rhythm. His offensive burst provided crucial secondary scoring, though he occasionally lost his man on back-door cuts defensively. The hot shooting heavily outweighed his defensive lapses, resulting in a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 18.7m -11.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 18.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to find his footing offensively, missing key rotational reads and passing up open looks that stalled the second unit. He attempted to compensate with high-energy hustle plays and crashing the glass, but defensive miscommunications negated that effort. The sharp drop in his usual scoring output left a noticeable void in the bench production.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.1m -11.2
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Wreaked havoc as a baseline cutter and offensive rebounder, generating massive value without having plays called for him. His point-of-attack defense completely suffocated the opposing ball handlers, forcing multiple dead-ball situations. The sheer efficiency of his finishing around the rim maximized his minutes and drove a stellar net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 17.9m -10.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 16.4m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

Anchored the frontcourt with veteran savvy, utilizing flawless drop-coverage positioning to neutralize the opponent's pick-and-roll attack. His ability to pop for trailing threes kept the opposing center out of the paint, creating vital driving lanes. The combination of high-IQ defense and timely floor-spacing resulted in a highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +45.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 16.4m -10.1
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Will Richard 16.4m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he frequently hid in the corners rather than actively participating in the spacing concepts. He provided decent resistance on the perimeter defensively, but his lack of scoring gravity allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team. The inability to make an imprint on the offensive end ultimately dragged his net impact down.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +53.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.4m -10.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed to tread water in limited action by providing solid rim protection and altering several shots in the paint. His offensive timing was slightly off, missing multiple contested finishes around the basket. Ultimately, his brief stint was defined by defensive stability rather than offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.5m -2.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A lack of aggression and a crucial missed rotation defined a brief, negative stint on the floor. He failed to initiate the offense with any urgency, leading to late-clock, heavily contested shots by teammates. The total absence of hustle plays or defensive disruption meant he offered no counterweight to his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.5m -2.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Instantly injected life into the offense with multiple lightning-quick transition threes that punished a retreating defense. His sheer willingness to fire from deep warped the opponent's transition shell, opening up the floor immediately. This brief but explosive shooting display snapped a massive cold streak and drove a highly efficient positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 4.5m -2.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
24
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

High-volume shot creation drove a massive Box score, while active hands in passing lanes boosted his defensive impact. His ability to consistently generate quality looks in the midrange stabilized the half-court offense during crucial stretches. The overall positive net rating reflects his dual-threat presence as both a scorer and a disruptive perimeter defender.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 34.9m -21.4
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 30.5m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Errant perimeter shooting and ill-advised forced drives severely tanked his overall impact. While he managed to salvage some value through secondary hustle plays, his poor shot selection often derailed offensive momentum. The significant negative total underscores how much his inefficient volume hurt the team's spacing and transition defense.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 30.5m -18.7
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.5

A heavy dosage of live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses in transition cratered his net impact, completely erasing the value of his scoring uptick. He repeatedly gambled for steals, which compromised the defensive shell and led to easy opponent layups. The raw production masked a chaotic floor game that disrupted the team's overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 28.2m -17.3
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 26.3m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume compared to his recent surge, his impact remained afloat due to disciplined defensive positioning. He effectively walled off the paint and contested shots without fouling, compensating for his reduced offensive role. A few timely screens and box-outs kept his underlying metrics slightly positive even on a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 26.3m -16.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 25.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Offensive hesitancy and a lack of scoring punch dragged down his overall rating, as he passed up several open looks. He worked hard to offset this with relentless on-ball pressure and strong hustle metrics, fighting through screens consistently. However, the inability to punish defensive rotations ultimately rendered him a slight net negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 25.4m -15.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Stagnant off-ball movement and poor finishing at the rim severely limited his offensive utility, leading to a steep negative impact. Though he provided some resistance on the perimeter, his inability to capitalize on closeouts allowed the defense to sag off him. The steep drop in scoring production directly correlated with stalled offensive possessions when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 24.9m -15.2
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Anchored the interior with phenomenal rim-running and disciplined verticality, generating a solid positive impact. He capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive glass opportunities, scoring efficiently without demanding post touches. His ability to alter shots at the rim without committing fouls provided a crucial defensive backbone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 21.7m -13.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

Controlled the tempo masterfully, utilizing sharp pick-and-roll navigation to create high-percentage looks for himself and others. His aggressive point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, adding significant hidden value. This massive scoring surge was fueled by excellent shot selection rather than forced volume, resulting in a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 20.4m -12.6
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 19.4m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc and forced isolation attempts completely derailed his offensive value. Without his usual scoring gravity, the floor shrank for his teammates, compounding his negative impact. His defensive apathy during a crucial second-half stretch further exacerbated the damage, allowing uncontested straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Provided a brief but sturdy defensive spark during his limited minutes by switching effectively onto smaller guards. His offensive involvement was virtually non-existent, snapping a streak of highly efficient scoring performances. Still, his physical presence in the paint ensured the opponent gained no easy interior advantages while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed to squeeze out a marginal positive impact through a quick, decisive baseline cut that resulted in an easy bucket. His court time was too brief to establish any real rhythm, though he avoided making any costly mistakes. The drastic drop in scoring volume was purely a byproduct of the rotational crunch rather than poor execution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0