GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 26.5m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

Sustained a highly effective streak of two-way play by blowing up passing lanes and turning defense into immediate transition offense. His decisive decision-making on the wing kept the ball moving and punished a sluggish defensive rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 26.5m -15.0
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Draymond Green 25.5m
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Sagged into negative territory due to a string of careless live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. While his defensive communication remained intact, his reluctance to look at the rim allowed defenders to completely abandon him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 25.5m -14.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

Suffered a disastrous stint defined by poor shot selection and an inability to navigate ball pressure. His struggles to initiate the offense stalled the second unit, resulting in a massive negative swing whenever he touched the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -38.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 25.3m -14.5
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Moses Moody 20.2m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Cooled off significantly from his recent scoring tear, settling for heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock. He barely kept his impact above water by executing a few timely closeouts that prevented open corner looks.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -65.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 20.2m -11.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Al Horford 20.1m
10
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Spaced the floor effectively but bled value on the defensive end against quicker perimeter matchups. Opponents relentlessly targeted his heavy feet in drop coverage, neutralizing the spacing benefits he provided offensively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -67.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 20.1m -11.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 27.5m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.9

Broke out of a severe scoring drought but crippled the offense with atrocious shot selection early in possessions. His defensive metrics were inflated by the scheme, as he frequently lost his man off the ball and surrendered back-breaking backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 27.5m -15.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Pat Spencer 26.1m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Generated decent offensive volume but gave it all back through undisciplined fouling and poor transition defense. A costly stretch of forcing passes into tight windows derailed the team's momentum and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.1m -14.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.9

Continued a brutal shooting slump by forcing heavily contested perimeter looks that led to long rebounds and fast breaks the other way. Even his typically reliable point-of-attack defense slipped, as he was repeatedly blown by on straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Quinten Post 16.6m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Anchored a massive second-half run by setting bone-crushing screens and executing perfect pick-and-pop reads. His sheer size altered multiple shots at the rim, completely shutting down the opponent's interior attack during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 13.1m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving late on defensive rotations. A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 13.1m -7.4
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Failed to inject his usual defensive chaos, looking a step slow navigating through off-ball screens. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his minutes, as defenders completely ignored him to pack the strong side.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 8.8m -5.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Burned through a quick rotational stint without registering any meaningful positive actions. Was caught ball-watching on a key defensive possession that resulted in a wide-open corner attempt.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.3m -1.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Barely broke a sweat in an incredibly brief appearance that lacked any physical imposition. Failed to secure the defensive glass during his short stint, allowing a back-breaking second-chance opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
25
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.4

Commanded the game flow entirely through relentless downhill attacking and elite point-of-attack defense. His ability to collapse the defense and kick out created high-quality looks for teammates, cementing his role as the primary engine of the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.2
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 39.5m -22.4
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 35.2m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Impact cratered despite active hands, largely due to untimely defensive gambles that compromised the shell. A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers broke the offensive rhythm, negating the value of his individual scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 35.2m -20.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 33.7m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Struggled to find his typical rhythm against aggressive trapping schemes, forcing several contested looks late in the clock. However, he salvaged a positive overall impact by digging in defensively and generating crucial deflections during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 33.7m -19.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 29.0m
12
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Dominated the glass to anchor the interior, but his overall footprint trended negative due to sluggish pick-and-roll coverages. Opponents successfully targeted his drop coverage during a crucial second-half stretch, erasing the value of his second-chance generation.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 29.0m -16.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dominick Barlow 22.0m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Continued a highly efficient offensive pattern by punishing mismatches in the paint and finishing through contact. His physical screen-setting and rim-running dictated the half-court tempo, driving a massive positive swing when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 22.0m -12.5
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Exploited rotational gaps with timely baseline cuts and aggressive drives to the basket. His switchability on the defensive end neutralized multiple pick-and-roll combinations, allowing the second unit to maintain momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 26.8m -15.2
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Provided steady two-way value by staying disciplined in his perimeter defensive assignments and capitalizing on spot-up opportunities. A pattern of decisive closeout-attacks kept the offensive chain moving, ensuring his minutes were a net positive despite low usage.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 23.2m -13.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 15.9m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.7

Completely flipped the game's energy with a violent rim-protecting stretch that deterred multiple drives. His elite vertical spacing and relentless rim-running forced the defense into impossible rotations, driving a massive efficiency spike during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 15.9m -9.1
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failed to leave a mark during a brief rotational stint, looking hesitant against physical perimeter pressure. His inability to create separation bogged down the offensive spacing, leading to a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +63.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 8.3m -4.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Saw only garbage-time action, making no discernible impact on either end of the floor. Rushed through offensive sets without establishing a rhythm during his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Blew a defensive assignment immediately upon checking in, leading to an easy breakdown at the rim. The coaching staff pulled him almost instantly after a forced, out-of-rhythm jumper stalled the possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logged strictly situational minutes at the end of the rotation. Did not have enough runway to influence the game's outcome or establish any statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0