GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 36.7m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.0

A severe drop in offensive efficiency plagued his minutes, as forcing contested looks early in the shot clock repeatedly killed offensive momentum. The resulting long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent severely punished his overall net rating despite passable half-court defense.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 36.7m -21.2
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Al Horford 34.1m
13
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.6

Excellent positional defense and strong rim deterrence were completely undone by a brutal shooting slump. Bricking numerous attempts from the perimeter bogged down the half-court offense, ultimately dragging his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 34.1m -19.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Will Richard 31.7m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Struggled to find any rhythm offensively, frequently stalling possessions by hesitating on open catch-and-shoot opportunities. While his point-of-attack defense remained stingy, the inability to space the floor effectively allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 31.7m -18.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 29.5m
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Punished the defense for leaving him open on the perimeter, hitting catch-and-shoot looks at an unsustainable clip to boost his offensive value. Combined with his standard elite backline communication, he provided a steadying, highly efficient two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 29.5m -17.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.6

Pivoted away from his usual scoring role to become an absolute menace in the margins, generating immense value through loose ball recoveries and drawn charges. His relentless ball pressure and connective passing ensured a positive overall footprint even on an off-shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 26.9m -15.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Pat Spencer 30.2m
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

Swallowed up possessions with a high-usage, middling-efficiency approach that ultimately yielded a perfectly flat net impact. While he navigated screens well defensively, his tendency to force contested mid-range pull-ups negated the value of his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 30.2m -17.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.5

Wreaked absolute havoc as a baseline cutter and offensive rebounder, generating ultra-efficient offense without ever needing a play called for him. His trademark point-of-attack disruption and relentless motor completely suffocated the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 21.8m -12.6
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
LJ Cryer 20.6m
17
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Sizzling perimeter shot-making kept the scoreboard ticking, masking a complete lack of secondary contributions. A total absence of hustle plays and poor rotational awareness severely capped what could have been a dominant offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Commanded the paint with terrifying rim protection, altering countless drives and forcing kick-outs. Offensively, his ability to consistently draw shooting fouls salvaged an otherwise inefficient shooting night, driving a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 20.2m -11.8
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Failed to make any meaningful imprint on the game during his brief rotation, looking entirely out of sync with the offensive flow. Bleeding points on defensive switches without offering any rim pressure in return resulted in a quick hook and a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 11.0m -6.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Logged a brief cameo at the end of a quarter, executing defensive assignments cleanly without forcing the issue offensively. Provided a stabilizing presence during his short stint to secure a slight positive bump.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 45.2m
41
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.2

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, combining relentless downhill attacking with elite weak-side rim protection. His high-volume shot creation never compromised his defensive energy over a grueling marathon shift, resulting in a staggering positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.2m
Offense +30.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +11.6
Raw total +45.3
Avg player in 45.2m -26.1
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Josh Giddey 43.2m
21
pts
13
reb
17
ast
Impact
-4.6

The gaudy counting stats completely masked a highly damaging floor game characterized by sloppy live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses. Pushing the pace recklessly led to empty possessions that allowed the opponent to consistently score in transition, dragging his net score deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 43.2m -25.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Leonard Miller 37.7m
17
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

Defensive anchoring fueled a highly positive overall impact, as he consistently deterred shots at the rim to generate a massive defensive rating. Efficient interior finishing capitalized on the spacing, cementing his role as a reliable two-way presence in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +10.9
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 37.7m -21.6
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 33.9m
12
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

A heavy reliance on perimeter jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency, as bricking numerous attempts from deep erased the value of his work on the glass. The poor shot selection dragged his overall impact into the red despite a solid defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 33.9m -19.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his net impact, as he passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim. Although his defensive rotations were crisp, playing effectively four-on-five on the scoring end proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 23.2m -13.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Jones 33.5m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

Consistent penetration and reliable finishing kept the offense humming, yet his overall footprint remained essentially flat. A lack of disruptive hustle plays and minimal off-ball defensive impact meant he gave back almost exactly what he generated on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 33.5m -19.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Gritty work in the trenches defined this outing, with high-level hustle and disciplined drop coverage driving a positive outcome. He didn't demand touches, instead generating value entirely through screen-setting, rim deterrence, and timely putbacks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 28.1m -16.3
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.8

Forced isolations and heavily contested jumpers completely derailed the second-unit offense during his stint. Coupling that abysmal shot selection with turnstile perimeter defense resulted in a massive net negative despite decent rotational hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense -2.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 20.2m -11.8
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1