GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 29.2m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Transitioned seamlessly into a defensive stopper role on a night where his usual scoring volume dipped. He navigated screens beautifully to hound perimeter shooters, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm. This high-level defensive execution, paired with timely hustle plays, ensured his impact remained highly positive.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 29.2m -18.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 27.8m
19
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-1.3

A barrage of perimeter shot-making was ultimately undermined by defensive liabilities and careless ball management. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points that negated his offensive brilliance. Several unforced errors while trying to thread the needle on passes further dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense -2.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 27.8m -17.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Will Richard 26.0m
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.4

Strong weak-side defensive rotations and active hands were nearly undone by sloppy ball security. He operated as a reliable connective passer but occasionally forced the issue into heavy traffic, resulting in costly give-aways. Ultimately, his gritty perimeter defense just barely kept his overall impact above water.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 26.0m -16.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Quinten Post 21.3m
15
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Completely warped the opposing defense by operating as a lethal pick-and-pop threat from beyond the arc. This floor-spacing gravity opened up massive driving lanes for his guards, while his sturdy interior positioning anchored the defensive shell. It was a breakout performance defined by flawless shot selection and structural defensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 21.3m -13.3
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Masterful manipulation of pace and elite defensive anticipation drove a dominant two-way performance. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, drawing fouls and collapsing the defense to create secondary actions. His ability to completely shut down his primary assignment on the wing cemented his massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 20.8m -12.9
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Relentless off-ball movement and elite rebounding for his position fueled a spectacular all-around performance. He consistently beat larger defenders to loose balls and converted those extra possessions into back-breaking second-chance points. His ability to read the floor and exploit defensive gaps kept the offense humming at peak efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +7.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 29.6m -18.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 23.0m
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Exploded out of a severe shooting slump by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities in transition with ruthless efficiency. Surprisingly, it was his heightened defensive engagement—staying attached to shooters and fighting through screens—that solidified his massive positive rating. He stretched the floor to its breaking point, completely altering the opponent's defensive geometry.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 23.0m -14.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 19.1m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Veteran savvy and impeccable defensive positioning anchored the frontcourt, compensating for a mediocre shooting night. He expertly blew up dribble handoffs and communicated switches, preventing defensive breakdowns before they occurred. His steadying presence ensured the team maintained its structural integrity during chaotic stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +63.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 19.1m -11.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Uncharacteristic passivity and a lack of his usual chaotic energy resulted in a surprisingly negative floor impact. He failed to generate the deflections and transition opportunities that typically define his game, allowing the opponent to run their sets comfortably. Without his trademark defensive disruption, his limited offensive role became a liability.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 16.4m -10.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 13.4m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Completely derailed the offense by forcing ill-advised drives into heavy traffic, resulting in empty possessions and lost momentum. He looked hesitant when initiating sets, allowing the defense to easily jump passing lanes. This offensive stagnation, combined with a lack of physical edge, resulted in a disastrous stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 13.4m -8.3
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Provided a flawless burst of interior efficiency by strictly operating within his limitations as a lob threat and rim runner. He altered multiple shots at the basket during his brief stint, showcasing excellent verticality without fouling. This disciplined, mistake-free execution maximized his value in a condensed timeframe.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 7.7m -4.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Wandered through a brief appearance without making any tangible imprint on the game's flow. He failed to assert himself within the offensive structure, effectively playing four-on-five on that end of the floor. A lack of urgency in transition defense further compounded his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LJ Cryer 2.9m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Fired away quickly during a short cameo but struggled to find a consistent rhythm against set defenses. His defensive impact was entirely negligible, neither helping nor hurting the overall scheme. Ultimately, his brief minutes served as a wash for the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.9m -1.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 30.3m
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Bleeding value on the defensive end completely negated his aggressive offensive output. He was consistently targeted on switches, allowing easy dribble penetration that compromised the entire defensive shell. Offensively, a tendency to force contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock stifled the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 30.3m -18.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 27.7m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

A stark departure from his recent highly efficient scoring tear, his overall impact slipped into the red due to offensive passivity and likely turnover costs. He struggled to find his spots on the perimeter, breaking a five-game streak of elite shooting efficiency. His perimeter containment remained solid, but it wasn't enough to offset the lack of offensive punch.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 27.7m -17.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 26.9m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Elevated scoring volume masked a highly inefficient shot profile that ultimately dragged down his overall impact. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the rim resulted in empty offensive possessions. His defensive engagement was virtually non-existent, failing to provide the two-way resistance typically expected of him.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 26.9m -16.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 25.9m
4
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

An absolute offensive cratering defined this outing, as he forced contested looks and completely lost his touch around the basket. While his defensive anchoring remained elite and disrupted multiple pick-and-roll sets, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions tanked his net impact. The decision to repeatedly launch from beyond the arc despite a broken jumper proved especially costly.

Shooting
FG 1/13 (7.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 25.9m -16.0
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 25.0m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite point-of-attack harassment salvaged a night where his offensive touch completely abandoned him. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble handoffs and diving for loose balls, creating crucial extra possessions. This relentless defensive motor perfectly illustrates how a player can dominate a game's flow without making shots.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 25.0m -15.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

A massive surge in two-way aggression completely transformed his usual role, driving a highly positive floor impact. He capitalized on defensive rotations to find open space, while simultaneously providing excellent weak-side rim deterrence. His willingness to battle in the trenches for 50/50 balls set a physical tone during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 26.6m -16.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.7

Playmaking ambitions backfired severely, with forced interior passes likely leading to momentum-swinging live-ball turnovers. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, repeatedly driving into collapsed defensive shells instead of keeping the ball moving. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent severely punished his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 25.8m -15.9
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Kel'el Ware 18.2m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Supreme efficiency as a roll man fueled a highly productive stint on the floor. He punished defensive miscommunications by diving hard to the rim and finishing cleanly through traffic. This disciplined shot selection, combined with steady positional defense, maximized his value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 18.2m -11.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A failure to process defensive coverages quickly enough led to stagnant offensive sets and a steep negative rating. He was frequently caught out of position in transition, forcing the defense into scramble mode. Despite some marginal hustle plays, his inability to initiate the offense effectively derailed the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 13.8m -8.5
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 8.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Maximized a brief rotational stint by acting as an immediate spark plug through sheer energy. He disrupted passing lanes and secured long rebounds, tilting the possession battle in his team's favor. This hyper-efficient burst of activity perfectly executed the mandate of a deep-bench energy player.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 8.2m -5.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Capitalized on a brief cameo by decisively attacking closeouts and converting his limited opportunities. He kept the ball moving within the flow of the offense rather than forcing his own looks. A slight defensive lapse was easily masked by his quick offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a stabilizing presence during a short stint by making the simple, correct reads. He executed offensive sets cleanly without trying to play outside his designated role. This low-mistake approach yielded a marginally positive impact during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to find the game's rhythm during a fleeting appearance, looking a step slow on defensive rotations. An ill-advised shot attempt stalled out an offensive possession and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. He simply couldn't impact the game positively before being subbed back out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.9m -2.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0