GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 33.9m
27
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.3

High-level shot-making and surprisingly robust defensive metrics combined to produce an elite overall rating. His off-ball gravity constantly warped the opposing defense, creating high-quality looks even when he wasn't shooting. Punishing drop coverage with characteristic efficiency defined his offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 33.9m -19.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
32
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.5

Masterful shot creation and elite finishing at the rim drove a stratospheric impact score. He systematically dismantled his individual matchups, combining high-volume scoring with excellent defensive disruption to dominate both ends of the floor. This was a quintessential two-way clinic that dictated the entire pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +34.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +42.9
Avg player in 32.0m -18.4
Impact +24.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moses Moody 28.0m
21
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Lethal perimeter marksmanship generated a massive box score boost, but a complete lack of defensive resistance capped his true impact. He operated exclusively as a floor-spacing specialist, punishing late closeouts with remarkable efficiency. However, his failure to rotate or challenge shots on the other end gave back much of the value he created.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 28.0m -16.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 27.2m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Offensive hesitation and likely turnover issues severely penalized his overall rating despite his standard hustle contributions. His reluctance to look at the rim allowed the defense to completely ignore him, bogging down the team's half-court execution. The inability to connect on anything inside the arc neutralized his playmaking value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 27.2m -15.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quinten Post 11.7m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

A disastrous shooting performance from the perimeter completely tanked his value in limited minutes. Forcing low-percentage looks from deep destroyed offensive momentum and directly fueled the negative impact score. His floor-spacing role backfired spectacularly as he repeatedly shot the team out of possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 11.7m -6.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.3

An absolute clinic in two-way efficiency drove a massive positive rating, highlighted by near-perfect shot selection. He supplemented his blistering scoring with elite hustle metrics, constantly winning loose balls and generating extra possessions. His relentless energy on both ends of the floor was the catalyst for the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +8.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 25.7m -14.8
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Brick-laying from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive value, neutralizing his otherwise excellent defensive contributions. The high volume of wasted possessions created a stark negative impact despite his ability to generate deflections and pressure the ball. His inability to punish closeouts stalled multiple offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 23.1m -13.2
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Al Horford 21.2m
5
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.4

Solid positional defense and rim deterrence kept his impact near neutral, but a lack of offensive aggression prevented a positive score. He functioned primarily as a connective piece, deferring shots and focusing on anchoring the backline. While he didn't hurt the team with missed attempts, his low usage limited his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 21.2m -12.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Failing to register a single point dragged his net impact deep into the negative, completely overshadowing his typical defensive energy. Missing his perimeter looks allowed opponents to sag off him and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. The sheer lack of offensive utility rendered his minutes highly detrimental to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 16.0m -9.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 15.3m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Extreme offensive passivity and nonexistent defensive resistance resulted in a negative score despite converting his only attempt. By completely disappearing from the flow of the offense, he allowed the defense to play essentially five-on-four. His inability to stay in front of his man likely bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 15.3m -8.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 4.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Maximized a tiny rotation window by executing perfectly on his lone perimeter attempt and bringing immediate defensive energy. His flawless efficiency and active hands generated a disproportionately high positive score for such short minutes. He continued his recent streak of hyper-efficient shooting, even if the volume was drastically reduced.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 4.6m -2.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A rushed, missed shot during an incredibly brief garbage-time stint resulted in a minor negative penalty. There simply wasn't enough time to establish any rhythm or contribute to the defensive end. The micro-sample size essentially amounted to a single wasted possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 37.3m
25
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

An aggressive scoring surge fueled a high box score metric, but average perimeter efficiency kept his overall net impact grounded. He provided excellent defensive resistance and hustle, yet the sheer volume of two-point attempts limited his mathematical upside. His relentless attacking of closeouts defined the offensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 37.3m -21.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 37.1m
5
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-9.2

A severe drop in scoring aggression and brutal shooting efficiency completely tanked his overall impact rating. Despite generating positive value through hustle and perimeter defense, his inability to convert open looks created empty offensive possessions. His reluctance to attack the rim stood out in stark contrast to his recent form.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 37.1m -21.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles McBride 36.7m
25
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

An absolute eruption from beyond the arc completely shattered his recent offensive baselines and drove a stellar net rating. Beyond the perimeter shot-making, he generated immense value through high-energy hustle plays and suffocating point-of-attack defense. His relentless ball pressure fundamentally disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +6.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.7m -21.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 34.5m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Blistering shot-making efficiency drove a massive box score rating, but a complete lack of measurable defensive impact severely suppressed his final total. He capitalized brilliantly on spot-up opportunities, punishing defensive rotations with near-perfect execution. However, his inability to generate deflections or disrupt passing lanes left him as a one-way contributor.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 34.5m -19.7
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
20
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Dominating the glass masked a slightly inefficient shooting night that kept his net impact from reaching elite tiers. While he struggled to finish inside the arc compared to his recent stretch, his defensive positioning and rim deterrence provided crucial stability. Controlling the defensive boards essentially eliminated second-chance opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 30.7m -17.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Forcing contested shots cratered his efficiency and ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact despite an uptick in scoring volume. A complete absence of hustle plays and negligible defensive contributions meant he offered nothing when his jumper wasn't falling. His tendency to stall the offense with isolation-heavy possessions was a glaring detriment.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -57.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 18.4m -10.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Chucking low-percentage perimeter shots severely damaged his offensive value and dragged his net score into the negative. While he managed to contribute positively on the defensive end, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions outweighed those stops. His role devolved entirely into a spot-up decoy who couldn't punish defensive sagging.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 16.4m -9.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 11.3m
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.4

A disastrous net impact score was likely fueled by costly turnovers that completely negated his playmaking efforts. Without any scoring threat to keep the defense honest, opponents easily jumped his passing lanes. His inability to secure the ball in traffic turned potential scoring drives into transition opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 11.3m -6.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a liability on the floor, dragging his total score into the red. Although he provided a slight defensive bump through rim protection, his failure to even attempt a shot allowed defenders to freely double-team elsewhere. He essentially operated as an offensive ghost during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 9.7m -5.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by empty offensive trips and a complete lack of scoring punch. Missing his limited attempts quickly tanked his rating before he could establish any rhythm. He failed to replicate the physical interior presence that had characterized his recent performances.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 4.0m -2.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting appearance that generated negligible statistical noise. His negative fractional score simply reflects the team losing a possession or two during his brief garbage-time stint. There was neither time nor opportunity to make a measurable imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Capitalized on a garbage-time opportunity by converting his lone attempt to secure a slightly positive rating. The flawless execution in a micro-stint provided a tiny mathematical boost. It was a brief but perfectly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A missed perimeter look during a tiny window of playing time resulted in a mildly negative grade. He failed to replicate his recent scoring averages, firing a blank in his only offensive sequence. The sample size was simply too small to evaluate beyond the single wasted possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0