GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 35.2m
23
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Generated strong offensive value through aggressive spot-up shooting, though he gave back a large portion of that impact through off-ball defensive miscommunications. His ability to punish late closeouts kept the offense humming despite the leaks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 35.2m -22.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gui Santos 27.8m
17
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maintained his scorching efficiency by strictly taking high-value shots within the natural flow of the offense. While his overall impact was slightly muted by a lack of point-of-attack resistance, his connective passing kept the second unit highly functional.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 27.8m -17.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Al Horford 27.0m
22
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.6

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency, anchoring the defense with elite positioning while completely breaking the opponent's coverage with lethal pick-and-pop shooting. His veteran awareness snuffed out multiple driving lanes, driving a massive positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +13.0
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 27.0m -16.9
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.0

Overcame a brutal shooting night from deep by generating immense value through point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs and force live-ball turnovers completely masked the erratic perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.9
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 25.0m -15.6
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pat Spencer 18.6m
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.3

Suffered a steep drop-off from his recent production, primarily due to passive offensive positioning that allowed the defense to sag into the passing lanes. This lack of scoring gravity clogged the paint for his teammates, dragging his overall impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 18.6m -11.8
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
15
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.6

Racked up massive counting stats but ultimately posted a negative impact due to defensive breakdowns in isolation coverage. The high-volume rebounding masked several costly late-game rotations that surrendered easy momentum-shifting buckets.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 36.6m -23.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Will Richard 29.6m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Despite a notable scoring surge compared to his recent average, his impact plummeted due to poor transition defense and ill-advised reaching fouls. The extra offensive production was entirely negated by the free points he handed back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 29.6m -18.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Quinten Post 20.9m
0
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, failing to register a single point and severely damaging the team's half-court spacing. An inability to finish through contact or command defensive attention allowed opponents to freely double-team the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 20.9m -13.3
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Cooled off from his recent hyper-efficient stretch but still drove positive value by wreaking havoc in the passing lanes. A persistent willingness to take open corner threes kept the defense honest, even if they weren't falling at his usual blistering rate.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 19.4m -12.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 37.9m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.4

A massive regression from his recent efficient stretch, cratering his overall impact through forced perimeter looks. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to collapse inside, compounding the negative value of his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 37.9m -23.9
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 35.9m
35
pts
20
reb
12
ast
Impact
+31.4

Utterly dominated the game by operating as the central hub, generating massive positive value through elite defensive positioning and hyper-efficient floor mapping. His ability to punish drop coverage from beyond the arc broke the opponent's defensive scheme entirely.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +31.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +15.2
Raw total +54.1
Avg player in 35.9m -22.7
Impact +31.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 5
S Christian Braun 35.1m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Showed strong finishing ability inside the arc, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative due to hidden transition lapses. Missed assignments on the perimeter overshadowed what was otherwise a highly efficient downhill scoring night.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 35.1m -22.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 33.5m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

Weighed down by a significant drop in scoring volume and erratic perimeter execution compared to his recent tear. Settling for contested long-range looks instead of attacking the paint stalled the offensive rhythm and dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 33.5m -21.1
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Provided a solid defensive spark off the bench, but his overall impact remained negative due to errant perimeter shooting. The scoring uptick was entirely negated by empty possessions and an inability to convert from deep.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 18.5m -11.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 29.4m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Continued his streak of highly efficient two-way play, anchoring the perimeter defense while making timely cuts to the basket. His elite hustle metrics reflect a series of crucial loose-ball recoveries that sustained extra offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 29.4m -18.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

Hurt the team significantly by forcing contested perimeter shots early in the shot clock. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption meant his cold shooting directly fueled opponent transition momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 24.8m -15.7
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during his brief rotation stint, frequently getting caught out of position on defensive switches. A complete lack of offensive involvement made it impossible to offset the structural damage done on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 12.9m -8.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Provided a sturdy interior presence in limited minutes, using his massive frame to alter shots at the rim. Kept his impact positive by securing the defensive glass and setting bruising screens that opened up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 12.1m -7.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0