GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
30
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.6

Masterful manipulation of defensive matchups generated high-quality looks from his preferred spots on the floor. He consistently drew fouls and collapsed the defense, acting as the primary engine for the half-court offense. His physical point-of-attack defense further solidified a dominant two-way showing that controlled the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 33.7m -18.5
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephen Curry 32.6m
31
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Relentless off-ball movement warped the defensive shell, even with his outside shot failing to connect at its usual clip. He pivoted to attacking hard closeouts, finishing creatively in the paint to keep the offense humming. The constant threat of his jumper dictated the opponent's entire defensive game plan and opened up cutting lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 32.6m -17.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Draymond Green 28.9m
5
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

Offensive hesitation and a refusal to look at the rim allowed the defense to completely sag off and muck up the passing lanes. While his backline communication remained solid, the lack of scoring threat created a 4-on-5 scenario that stalled out multiple possessions. This spacing bottleneck directly fueled the negative overall swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 28.9m -15.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Quinten Post 17.5m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Pick-and-pop utility was completely negated by being relentlessly hunted in defensive switches. Quicker guards isolated him on the perimeter, leading to compromised closeouts and easy blow-bys that collapsed the defense. The defensive bleeding far outweighed the value of his perimeter floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 17.5m -9.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 16.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

An absolute offensive void who failed to capitalize on the momentum from his previous breakout performance. Rushing his perimeter looks led to long rebounds and easy transition run-outs for the opposition. He struggled to stay attached to his man off the ball, compounding the offensive futility with defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 23.1%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 16.8m -9.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Forcing up contested perimeter looks completely short-circuited several offensive possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite generating decent disruption on the defensive end, his inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint against drivers. The resulting transition opportunities off his long misses drove his rating deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.1m -12.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

High-energy screen navigation and loose-ball recoveries weren't enough to salvage a highly inefficient scoring night. He struggled to create separation against physical coverage, leading to stalled possessions and late-clock grenades. The hustle metrics were impressive, but the lack of offensive initiation ultimately hurt the unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -52.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 16.5m -9.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Provided his trademark point-of-attack disruption, but the offensive fit was clunky alongside other non-shooters. His defender frequently roamed into the paint, severely restricting driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. The resulting half-court stagnation slightly edged out his positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.2m -8.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Gui Santos 16.0m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive misreads and late rotations routinely put the backline in compromising positions, driving his impact score into the red. While he finished efficiently around the basket, his inability to contain dribble penetration surrendered more value than he created. Opponents specifically targeted his side of the floor to initiate their primary actions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 16.0m -8.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Al Horford 15.9m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Anchored the drop coverage effectively, using high-IQ positioning to deter rim attempts without committing fouls. However, clanking wide-open trail threes prevented the offense from truly capitalizing on his minutes. It was a stabilizing, if unspectacular, shift defined by veteran defensive savvy rather than offensive punch.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 15.9m -8.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 12.3m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, bleeding points through blown assignments and poor closeouts. His offensive invisibility essentially forced his teammates to play a man down in the half-court. This disastrous stint severely compromised the team's momentum during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.9
Raw total -7.7
Avg player in 12.3m -6.9
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Failed to provide the instant offense expected of his role, looking out of sync during a brief and ineffective rotation. Without his shot falling, his defensive limitations were glaringly exposed on perimeter switches. He was quickly pulled after failing to bend the opposing defense or generate any gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 7.3m -4.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Delivered a violent burst of rim-running energy that completely caught the opposing frontcourt sleeping. He capitalized on every pick-and-roll dive, converting high-percentage looks with authority during a flawless micro-shift. This hyper-efficient cameo provided a massive, albeit brief, jolt of adrenaline to the interior offense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
24
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.5

Elite activity levels defined this shift, with off-the-charts hustle metrics indicating constant disruption in passing lanes and on 50/50 balls. He successfully translated defensive chaos into early offense, bypassing half-court sets entirely to generate easy transition looks. This two-way motor made him the most disruptive perimeter player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +12.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 33.8m -18.6
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.4m
18
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.6

Stretching the floor with surprising perimeter volume completely altered the frontcourt geometry and pulled rim protectors out of the paint. While his interior finishing was inconsistent, his defensive anchoring and rim deterrence kept his overall impact firmly in the green. He consistently forced opposing bigs into uncomfortable defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 33.4m -18.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 32.7m
23
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.1

Dominated the interior with relentless physicality, reflected in elite hustle and defensive metrics that drove a massive positive swing. His ability to secure loose balls and generate second-chance opportunities overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. Even with a cold night from deep, his downhill pressure dictated the terms of engagement on every possession.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +8.6
Defense +10.5
Raw total +39.2
Avg player in 32.7m -18.1
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 30.8m
11
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite highly efficient shot selection, his floor minutes bled points due to uncharacteristic lapses in point-of-attack defense. The playmaking volume was offset by costly giveaways that fueled opponent fast breaks and erased his offensive contributions. He struggled to navigate high ball screens, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 30.8m -17.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Vít Krejčí 21.3m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Perimeter inefficiency completely tanked his overall value during his floor time. Unable to punish closeouts, his offensive stagnation allowed the defense to load up elsewhere and force costly live-ball turnovers. The negative swing was further exacerbated by poor transition defense when his outside shots failed to fall.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 21.3m -11.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Extreme passivity on offense rendered him a non-factor during critical stretches, dragging down the unit's overall effectiveness. While he executed his few scoring opportunities well, his inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to freely double the primary options. He failed to leverage his size to create meaningful advantages in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 24.5m -13.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ McCollum 24.1m
12
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Settling for contested mid-range looks and blanking from beyond the arc stalled the offensive flow and tanked his overall efficiency. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, driving lanes evaporated for the primary creators. A few solid defensive rotations simply weren't enough to rescue a thoroughly disjointed offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.1m -13.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 19.9m
22
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter, he ruthlessly punished every late rotation and defensive miscommunication. His pure shooting gravity warped the opposing scheme, opening up the interior just by standing on the weak side. The sheer volume of high-value shot creation completely masked any defensive limitations during his stint.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 19.9m -10.9
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Firing blanks from the perimeter severely compromised the second unit's spacing and allowed defenders to pack the paint. Opposing wings completely ignored him off the ball, forcing his teammates into contested looks at the rim. He tried to compensate with defensive effort, but the offensive dead weight was too heavy to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 13.8m -7.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 3.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered little time to establish any sort of rhythm. Managed to execute a couple of solid defensive rotations before being subbed out. The sample size was simply too small to generate any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.6m -1.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalized on a momentary breakdown to secure a quick bucket during an abbreviated rotational appearance. He didn't log enough minutes to impact the game's broader tactical flow or defensive schemes. Served strictly as an end-of-bench placeholder to eat a few clock cycles.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0