GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 35.0m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Getting repeatedly hunted in isolation matchups tanked his defensive metrics and dragged down his overall score. Even with decent perimeter shot-making, the points he surrendered on the other end negated his offensive production. The lack of resistance at the point of attack was a glaring issue all night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense -2.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 35.0m -19.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pat Spencer 30.6m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.0

A heavy diet of contested floaters and missed layups completely derailed the team's offensive momentum during his shifts. Failing to capitalize on driving lanes resulted in empty trips that fed the opponent's transition game. Despite decent hustle, the offensive inefficiency created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 30.6m -17.0
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gui Santos 29.8m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Stellar off-ball defensive rotations kept his team in the fight, but clunky offensive execution held him back. Missing multiple open looks from deep allowed the defense to ignore him and shrink the floor. His defensive brilliance was unfortunately overshadowed by offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.8m -16.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 29.7m
17
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.1

Forcing uncharacteristic volume from beyond the arc wasted possessions, but his defensive orchestration salvaged his overall impact. Relentless communication and elite help-side positioning stifled opponent drives. The gritty hustle plays ultimately outweighed the questionable shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 29.7m -16.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.6

Scorching hot perimeter shooting punished the defense for going under screens and massively boosted his offensive value. Taking only high-value shots and converting them at a blistering rate maximized his floor time. Active hands on defense provided the perfect complement to his offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 121.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.1m -13.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

High-motor rebounding and constant off-ball movement generated positive hustle metrics, but poor finishing at the rim mitigated those gains. Struggling to convert through contact left points on the board and stalled offensive runs. His relentless energy couldn't quite overcome the sheer volume of missed opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 36.0m -20.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 26.4m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Firing blanks from the perimeter severely compromised the team's spacing and allowed his defender to roam the paint. While his veteran positioning yielded solid defensive metrics, the offensive stagnation he caused was too costly. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately cratered his overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 26.4m -14.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.1

Uncharacteristic volume from deep led to a string of empty possessions, though his point-of-attack defense kept his head above water. Disrupting passing lanes and pressuring ball-handlers salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient shooting performance. The defensive tenacity barely outweighed the offensive misfires.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 14.3m -8.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Quinten Post 13.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite pick-and-pop execution stretched the defense thin and provided a massive offensive jolt in limited minutes. Capitalizing on open perimeter looks generated high-value points that easily masked his slight defensive shortcomings. His shooting gravity completely altered the geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 13.1m -7.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
26
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.7

Generational rim deterrence and massive defensive metrics drove a dominant overall rating. Even with a sloppy shot profile from beyond the arc, his sheer interior gravity warped the opponent's game plan. He completely controlled the painted area to offset those wasted perimeter possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +10.3
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 33.5m -18.7
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 32.3m
27
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.8

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll carved up the defense and skyrocketed his offensive metrics. Taking high-quality shots and converting at an elite clip ensured maximum value per possession. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 32.3m -18.1
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 28.5m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

Poor shot selection and perimeter bricklaying derailed the offensive rhythm, dragging his overall impact deep into the red. His inability to find the bottom of the net from deep stalled out half-court sets. The slight positive defensive metrics couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 28.5m -15.8
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 21.5m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his assignments dragged down his overall rating. Forcing contested looks in the mid-range resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The hustle was present, but poor execution on both ends proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense -2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 21.5m -12.0
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

High-end activity on the defensive end and relentless hustle plays kept him on the floor despite a complete offensive disappearing act. Generating zero gravity on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. Ultimately, the total lack of scoring punch outweighed his gritty defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 19.8m -11.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Bully-ball drives to the rim generated high-percentage looks and anchored his strong offensive rating. While his hustle metrics were completely flat, the sheer force of his downhill attacks collapsed the defense repeatedly. The scoring efficiency was more than enough to keep his overall impact comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +18.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 29.3m -16.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 29.0m
14
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.6

Steady, high-IQ shot selection continues to be the bedrock of his positive impact. By avoiding forced actions and letting the offense come to him, he maximized his touches without bleeding value. Solid point-of-attack defense rounded out a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 29.0m -16.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Blanking from beyond the arc severely limited his spacing value and cramped the half-court offense. A lack of defensive resistance allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. Ultimately, the missed perimeter opportunities outweighed his modest interior contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +63.7
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.8m -12.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 15.3m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite screen-setting and relentless activity on the glass generated a massive hustle rating in a short stint. He never forced a bad look, playing perfectly within his role to maximize offensive flow. This disciplined approach and vertical spacing made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 15.3m -8.6
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Aggressive weak-side rim protection provided an unexpected defensive spark during his brief time on the floor. Capitalizing on limited offensive touches with confident shot-making further amplified his positive rating. It was a highly productive burst of energy that swung momentum in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 9.2m -5.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0