GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 24.7m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Uncharacteristic struggles from deep hampered his usual gravitational pull on the offense, leading to a suppressed box impact. He competed admirably on the defensive end, generating a strong rating through active hands and smart switching. Ultimately, the sheer volume of missed perimeter shots outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.7m -15.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 22.4m
6
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Offensive inefficiency plagued his minutes, as missed looks around the basket and a cold perimeter stroke dragged down his overall value. He still orchestrated the defense at a high level and generated his usual share of hustle plays. However, the inability to punish sagging defenders ultimately resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -56.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 22.4m -14.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

A brutal shooting night from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive rhythm and allowed defenders to go under screens. While he fought hard on the defensive end to contest perimeter looks, the bricked triples killed offensive momentum. His inability to space the floor effectively was the primary driver of a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 22.0m -13.8
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Quinten Post 18.4m
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Capitalized on his size advantage in the paint, finishing plays efficiently to drive a strong box score impact. He showed good hands in traffic and stretched the floor just enough to keep the defense honest. Solid positional rebounding and timely cuts to the rim cemented a highly productive rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 18.4m -11.6
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moses Moody 17.6m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume from his previous outing, he maintained a positive impact through highly efficient shot selection inside the arc. He navigated screens well defensively, contributing just enough resistance to stay in the green. His disciplined approach ensured he didn't force the issue when the offense flowed elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 17.6m -11.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 23.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.4

Put up a disastrous offensive goose egg, missing all his attempts and failing to pressure the rim. He tried to compensate with active closeouts and hustle, but the total lack of scoring gravity crippled the team's spacing. Being an offensive black hole for over 20 minutes resulted in the team's worst net impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 23.3m -14.7
Impact -16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Bullied his way to the rim with elite athleticism, finishing through contact to double his recent scoring output. He was equally impressive on the defensive end, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots. This aggressive, downhill style of play efficiently tilted the floor in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 21.1m -13.3
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.1

Clanked his way through a rough offensive shift, failing to connect from deep and stalling half-court sets. He maintained his usual defensive intensity and generated loose ball recoveries, but it wasn't enough to stem the bleeding. The combination of missed open looks and empty possessions drove his rating into the basement.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 20.5m -12.9
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Buddy Hield 19.3m
25
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.3

Delivered an absolute flamethrower performance from deep, punishing every defensive lapse with perfect perimeter execution. This extraordinary shooting efficiency generated a massive box impact that completely swung the game's momentum. He paired the offensive explosion with surprisingly active defensive rotations to post a dominant overall score.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 122.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +26.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 19.3m -12.1
Impact +20.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 14.8m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A massive regression from his recent hot streak saw him vanish from the offensive game plan entirely. His impact plummeted due to poor defensive awareness, frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts. Failing to assert himself on either end of the floor resulted in a highly damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.4
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 14.8m -9.3
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offered virtually no offensive resistance or gravity, completely disappearing from the scoring column. While he provided mild rim deterrence, his inability to secure contested rebounds or finish dump-offs made him a liability. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his minutes, sinking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 11.9m -7.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Thrived in his role as a defensive menace, blowing up handoffs and creating havoc at the point of attack. He complemented this defensive pressure with opportunistic cutting and flawless finishing around the rim. By sticking strictly to his strengths and avoiding bad shots, he secured a solid positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 11.1m -7.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Played a flawless offensive game in limited minutes, taking only high-value shots and connecting on all of them. He kept the ball moving and executed defensive schemes without making costly rotational errors. Maximizing his touches with perfect efficiency drove a highly impressive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 9.4m -5.9
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor and failed to convert his lone offensive opportunity during garbage time. He offered no measurable hustle or defensive resistance in his brief cameo. The lack of any positive counting stats kept his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.7m -1.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 1.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A complete non-factor offensively during his brief appearance, failing to register a single shot attempt. He was caught out of position defensively, allowing easy penetration in his limited reps. This combination of offensive invisibility and defensive lapses resulted in a quick negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.7m -1.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 38.9m
26
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+4.4

Dominated the interior with highly efficient finishing around the rim, doubling his recent scoring average through sheer physical mismatches. His playmaking gravity created easy looks for teammates, driving a massive box score impact. Defensively, his switchability across multiple positions provided the structural integrity needed to maintain a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 38.9m -24.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Brandon Ingram 36.1m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

A strong two-way showing was anchored by disruptive defensive rotations that repeatedly stalled opponent possessions. He hunted his midrange spots effectively to boost his scoring output over recent averages without forcing bad looks. The combination of wing isolation scoring and active closeouts kept his overall net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.1m -22.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
40
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+22.2

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by lethal perimeter shot-making that completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. His ability to punish drop coverage and hit contested pull-ups was the story of the game, generating a staggering offensive impact. He paired this scoring explosion with steady point-of-attack defense to secure a massive overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 7/8 (87.5%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.1%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +37.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +43.4
Avg player in 33.6m -21.2
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jamal Shead 30.3m
10
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.7

Relentless energy defined his minutes, evidenced by elite hustle metrics that kept multiple possessions alive. He operated efficiently within the flow of the offense, taking only high-percentage looks to maintain a positive box impact. His ball pressure at the point of attack disrupted opposing guards just enough to edge his net rating into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +7.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 30.3m -19.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gradey Dick 23.3m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite a noticeable scoring bump compared to recent struggles, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to defensive limitations. He generated solid hustle metrics by fighting through screens, but couldn't string together enough stops to stay out of the red. His perimeter spacing opened up driving lanes, though it didn't fully offset the points yielded on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 23.3m -14.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

Anchored the frontcourt with phenomenal defensive positioning, generating a massive defensive impact that stifled interior scoring. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities, stretching the floor effectively to punish late rotations. This dual-threat performance of rim protection and floor spacing resulted in a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +10.8
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 25.6m -16.2
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a timely offensive spark by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities on the wing. While his hustle metrics were negligible, he avoided costly mistakes and maintained solid defensive positioning. Hitting timely perimeter shots allowed him to carve out a slightly positive net impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 15.5m -9.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 11.9m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.3

Struggled to find any rhythm, with empty offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks dragging down his box impact. A complete lack of measurable hustle plays compounded his inability to affect the game without the ball. Defensive lapses on the wing ultimately pushed his overall net rating into a deep negative crater.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.8
Raw total -6.8
Avg player in 11.9m -7.5
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Active on the glass and in the passing lanes, his high hustle rating showed a willingness to do the dirty work. However, an inability to finish around the basket limited his offensive utility and allowed defenders to sag off him. This lack of scoring gravity ultimately negated his high-energy contributions, resulting in a slightly negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.9m -6.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 10.5m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Managed to find the bottom of the net efficiently, but his overall court presence was entirely one-dimensional. Generating zero hustle stats meant he was a passenger during loose ball situations and transition scrambles. A lack of defensive playmaking ultimately allowed his net impact to slip just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.5m -6.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered a pulse in a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. He moved the ball safely to avoid turnovers but generated absolutely no defensive or hustle impact. The microscopic sample size left his net rating hovering just below zero.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.7m -1.1
Impact -0.6
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
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Capitalized on his brief garbage-time minutes by securing a quick bucket to boost his box impact. He wasn't on the floor long enough to make any defensive reads or hustle plays. Still, executing offensively in his short window was enough to post a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.7m -1.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0