GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 32.0m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Relentless motor on 50/50 balls and the offensive glass completely shifted the momentum during the middle quarters. His willingness to take and make contested corner threes against hard closeouts anchored a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 32.0m -19.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pat Spencer 26.7m
5
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.7

Excellent point-of-attack defense and disruptive hands generated consistent stops on the perimeter. Unfortunately, poor finishing at the rim and forced passes in traffic dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 26.7m -16.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Found great success attacking closeouts and finishing with floaters in the non-restricted area. However, his overall value was negated by getting caught on multiple off-ball screens, yielding wide-open looks to his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.2m -15.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moses Moody 22.7m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Struggled to find a rhythm against physical wing defenders who denied him clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. Defensive lapses on back-door cuts heavily penalized his overall rating despite decent shooting efficiency from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 22.7m -13.7
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 18.6m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

Offensive impact cratered completely due to settling for low-percentage perimeter heaves instead of attacking the rim. The total lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the paint, stalling the entire offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -71.6
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 18.6m -11.1
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 27.5m
5
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

An inability to connect on pick-and-pop attempts severely cramped the team's half-court spacing and stalled offensive momentum. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, exposing his declining lateral mobility.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 27.5m -16.6
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Operated as a brilliant secondary connector, consistently making the extra pass to beat defensive rotations. His sharp positional awareness on the defensive glass prevented second-chance opportunities, cementing a solid two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.2m -16.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Will Richard 24.4m
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Injected sudden life into the offense by aggressively hunting his shot in early transition. His decisive trigger from the wings punished a defense that was slow to match up, driving a highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 24.4m -14.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, turning defensive deflections directly into transition run-outs. His elite cutting along the baseline perfectly exploited an opponent that was caught ball-watching.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 18.5m -11.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Commanded heavy defensive attention in the post, which opened up weak-side shooting pockets for teammates. However, his impact was neutralized by a failure to establish deep position, resulting in tough, contested turnaround jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 17.2m -10.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 39.0m
10
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.5

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night from beyond the arc completely tanked his offensive value and dragged his net rating into the red. However, his elite screen navigation and relentless ball pressure at the point of attack kept his defensive metrics sparkling despite the scoring woes.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 39.0m -23.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 37.1m
23
pts
15
reb
13
ast
Impact
+1.8

Heavy offensive usage yielded diminishing returns due to forced drives into traffic that resulted in empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite strong rebounding positioning, his overall impact was severely muted by poor perimeter shot selection and forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 37.1m -22.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 27.9m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.7

Elite floor spacing from the corners opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. His quick trigger against closeouts punished defensive lapses, though his overall impact was slightly capped by average point-of-attack resistance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 27.9m -16.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

Perimeter shot selection severely hampered his overall effectiveness, as forced looks early in the shot clock led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding the offensive inefficiency with costly defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 24.2m -14.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 18.1m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominated the interior through sheer verticality and highly disciplined rim protection. His ability to consistently finish through contact in the restricted area anchored a highly efficient stint on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.7

Deep drop coverage was repeatedly punished by his extended pull-up range in pick-and-roll situations. While his scoring gravity was immense, defensive limitations against bigger switches ate into his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 32.6m -19.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Masterful positional rebounding and sturdy post defense neutralized the opponent's interior attack. Offensively, he settled for too many contested mid-range jumpers instead of leveraging his size in the paint, limiting his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 27.7m -16.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Showed excellent spatial awareness in transition, consistently filling the correct lanes to generate high-percentage looks. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted opposing sets, translating directly to a solid two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 12.2m -7.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalized on limited minutes by strictly adhering to a catch-and-shoot role from the weak side. Kept the ball moving against zone looks, providing just enough spacing to keep the second unit offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 11.7m -7.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Brought immediate energy as a cutter, finding soft spots in the baseline defense for easy finishes at the rim. Unfortunately, over-aggressive closeouts on the perimeter led to foul trouble that cut his rotation short and negated his impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -58.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 7.3m -4.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 2.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Made an immediate impact in a brief cameo by stretching the floor as a trailing big. His quick release on a top-of-the-key triple forced the opposing center to abandon the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -180.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0