GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
16
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Masterful offensive efficiency and elite playmaking drove a massive positive impact. He systematically dismantled the opposing defense by hunting mismatches and delivering precise passes out of double teams. A slight dip in defensive intensity was easily masked by his overwhelming control of the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 26.4m -13.4
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 24.5m
7
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brutal shooting night dragged his overall impact slightly into the red despite exceptional playmaking. The threat of his jumper still created massive passing lanes, allowing him to orchestrate the offense brilliantly. Strong defensive effort and active hands partially mitigated the damage of his uncharacteristic misfires.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 24.5m -12.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 22.8m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Lethal floor-spacing and decisive catch-and-shoot execution heavily boosted his offensive impact. He punished defensive rotations by consistently knocking down open looks from deep, forcing the defense to stretch out. Solid positional awareness on the other end ensured his scoring bursts translated directly to a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 22.8m -11.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Draymond Green 22.1m
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

An absolute masterclass in team defense was frustratingly undermined by sloppy offensive execution. Forcing contested perimeter shots and turning the ball over in traffic severely damaged his overall net rating. His vocal leadership and incredible help-side rotations kept the defensive scheme intact despite the offensive hiccups.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.1m -11.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 6
S Quinten Post 14.2m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Chucking from beyond the arc without consequence completely tanked his value during a rough rotation stint. The refusal to mix up his shot profile led to long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. A lack of interior presence or defensive resistance compounded the damage of his cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 14.2m -7.4
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Crafty finishing and decisive drives to the basket fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, collapsing the defense and creating high-quality looks. Active hands in the passing lanes added a strong defensive element to a well-rounded performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 21.5m -11.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 21.4m
6
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.0

An absolute terror on the defensive end, his flawless rotations and switchability broke the game wide open. He combined that stifling defense with elite connective passing and high-motor hustle plays to completely dominate his minutes. The sheer energy he brought to the floor catalyzed a massive run that put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +11.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 21.4m -11.1
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 20.1m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Veteran defensive positioning and elite communication anchored a highly successful stint on the floor. He expertly sniffed out pick-and-roll actions, dropping back to protect the rim while still contesting perimeter shooters. His steadying presence and high-IQ hustle plays easily overcame a subpar shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 20.1m -10.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 18.5m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Sturdy perimeter defense and disciplined closeouts drove a positive impact during his time on the court. He stayed glued to his assignments, forcing tough shots and limiting straight-line drives. Opportunistic spot-up shooting provided just enough offensive value to keep his net rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.5m -9.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Sizzling shot-making from all three levels generated an astronomical box score impact. He confidently stepped into pull-up jumpers and exploited drop coverage with ruthless efficiency. While his defensive metrics were surprisingly quiet, his offensive explosion single-handedly carried the second unit.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +51.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 18.1m -9.3
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and elite hustle metrics defined a highly disruptive performance. He completely blew up opposing offensive sets by fighting through screens and generating deflections. Timely cuts to the basket provided just enough offensive utility to maximize his massive defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 12.9m -6.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brief, uneventful appearance yielded a slightly negative impact due to a lack of offensive involvement. He failed to establish deep post position or roll with intent, rendering him a non-factor on that end. He did manage to provide adequate rim deterrence, keeping his score from dropping further.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his short stint, as he failed to generate any meaningful gravity or playmaking. Floating around the perimeter without attacking the defense resulted in empty, stagnant possessions. A few solid defensive rotations were not enough to salvage his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 5.8m -2.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Forcing contested perimeter looks disrupted the offensive flow and dragged down his net impact. His inability to find a shooting rhythm allowed the defense to leak out in transition off long rebounds. Surprisingly, his focused on-ball defense prevented his minutes from being a complete disaster.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 46.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Caleb Love 33.9m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

Extreme shot-chasing severely damaged his net impact, as the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his playmaking. Firing away from deep with reckless abandon disrupted the team's offensive rhythm and fueled opponent transition opportunities. However, his surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense and high-energy hustle plays prevented his score from plummeting further.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 33.9m -17.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 28.7m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.4

A severe regression in scoring efficiency cratered his overall value, as he failed to capitalize on the looks he normally converts. The heavy reliance on outside shots that weren't falling dragged down the team's offensive rating during his minutes. He still managed to salvage some utility through relentless off-ball movement and high-motor hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 28.7m -14.7
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 28.0m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless attacking inside the arc drove a stellar box score impact, masking his struggles from deep. His ability to consistently break down the primary defender and finish at the rim kept the offense afloat during crucial stretches. Solid positional defense further stabilized his positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.0m -14.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 26.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Offensive struggles completely tanked his overall impact despite a strong showing in the hustle metrics. Settling almost exclusively for perimeter jumpers disrupted the offensive flow and yielded minimal returns. His active hands and energy plays were the only bright spots in an otherwise disjointed stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 26.1m -13.5
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 22.3m
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite defensive positioning anchored the paint and kept his overall impact near neutral despite limited offensive volume. He consistently deterred drives and altered shots around the rim, generating massive defensive value. A lack of offensive assertiveness prevented him from pushing into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.3m -11.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Rayan Rupert 26.8m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Efficient shot selection and opportunistic scoring bursts fueled a highly productive offensive showing. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts, maximizing his touches without forcing the issue. Disruptive length on the perimeter also generated significant defensive value, rounding out a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.8m -13.7
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jrue Holiday 20.9m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Uncharacteristic inefficiency from the perimeter completely derailed his offensive impact. Settling for heavily contested outside shots rather than initiating the offense led to stagnant possessions and a sharp drop from his usual production. His typically elite defensive impact was surprisingly muted, failing to offset the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 20.9m -10.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Perfect execution around the basket and dominant rim protection resulted in a massive two-way impact. He controlled the restricted area on both ends, finishing lobs with authority while erasing multiple shot attempts defensively. His sustained streak of hyper-efficient interior play continues to be a stabilizing force for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 15.9m -8.2
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

An inability to convert on open looks dragged down his overall rating during a brief stint on the floor. Clanking perimeter jumpers stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to sag off him. He did manage to provide sturdy on-ball defense, which kept his minutes from being a total negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 13.5m -6.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Hansen Yang 12.6m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A lack of overall aggression and minimal defensive presence resulted in a negative net impact during his short run. He floated on the perimeter rather than imposing his will inside, leading to empty offensive possessions. Failing to make a tangible dent in the hustle or defensive metrics left his overall contribution lacking.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.6m -6.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Duop Reath 11.3m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A quiet, low-usage stint resulted in a slightly negative impact as he struggled to leave a distinct mark on the game. He provided adequate positional defense but failed to generate any meaningful gravity on the offensive end. The lack of rebounding or rim pressure made his minutes largely forgettable.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 11.3m -5.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0