GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
25
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating effectively on the perimeter to drain backbreaking catch-and-shoot looks. His constant motion and willingness to crash the glass created extra possessions that steadily built a strong positive margin.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 35.9m -20.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Gui Santos 34.7m
17
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

A heavy volume of forced, late-clock perimeter attempts tanked his usually reliable shooting efficiency. While his playmaking kept the offense moving, the sheer number of empty possessions from deep ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 34.7m -19.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Bogged down the offense with several contested, early-clock floaters that failed to draw iron. Even with solid point-of-attack defense, those wasted offensive trips prevented him from generating a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 23.9m -13.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Punished switches mercilessly in the mid-post, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotations all night. His elite rim deterrence on the other end compounded his value, transforming his minutes into a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 22.1m -12.4
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Al Horford 4.9m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a very brief cameo appearance. A couple of missed assignments in drop coverage quickly put his lineup in a hole before he was subbed out.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.9m -2.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 29.3m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

Completely vanished on the offensive end, allowing his defender to aggressively double-team other ball-handlers. This offensive invisibility created a severe 4-on-5 dynamic that absolutely cratered his team's scoring efficiency while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 29.3m -16.3
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LJ Cryer 19.4m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the offensive flow. The resulting long rebounds frequently ignited opponent fast breaks, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 19.4m -10.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 18.9m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Bleeding points in transition defense severely undermined an otherwise acceptable offensive showing. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack forced the defense into constant rotation, driving a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 18.9m -10.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.6

Changed the entire complexion of the game with relentless ball pressure and timely cuts to the basket. His elite defensive disruption fueled several fast-break opportunities, resulting in a massive positive swing in limited action.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 18.9m -10.4
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Malevy Leons 13.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggled to finish through contact around the rim, leaving potential points on the board during key possessions. While his energy was apparent, those empty trips resulted in a marginally negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 13.6m -7.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Quinten Post 11.5m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Played to a virtual standstill during his rotation minutes by executing simple dribble hand-offs and staying within his role. A lack of notable mistakes kept his impact neutral, though he rarely threatened the defense vertically.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 11.5m -6.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Seth Curry 7.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Failed to bend the defense during a short stint, missing both of his looks coming off screens. The lack of his usual gravitational pull on the perimeter allowed the opposition to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 7.1m -4.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.3m
42
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.4

Completely took over the offensive flow by aggressively hunting mismatches and punishing drop coverage from the perimeter. The sheer volume of his highly efficient shot creation masked any minor defensive lapses, driving a massive positive margin for the primary lineup.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +33.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +40.2
Avg player in 37.3m -20.8
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 35.6m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Dominated the interior with flawless shot selection and a heavy diet of high-percentage rim finishes. His massive positive swing was anchored by elite rim protection and active hustle plays that consistently erased opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 35.6m -19.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 29.6m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Despite finding success with his own shot, his overall impact plummeted due to costly defensive breakdowns during his shifts. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing dribble penetration that fueled a massive negative swing when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 29.6m -16.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Errant perimeter shooting dragged down his offensive rating, frequently stalling out possessions when left open on the wing. However, relentless off-ball activity and elite hustle metrics nearly balanced out the damage from his cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 27.7m -15.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Julius Randle 26.8m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Offensive rhythm completely vanished after a strong stretch of games, bogging down the half-court flow with forced mid-range attempts. While his individual defensive metrics remained positive, his inability to generate clean looks or facilitate effectively torpedoed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 26.8m -14.9
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Ayo Dosunmu 31.1m
12
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.9

Raw production was ultimately overshadowed by poor rotational awareness during a critical second-half stretch. His minutes were marred by costly transition defensive breakdowns that gave away easy points and dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 31.1m -17.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 26.6m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Provided a crucial stabilizing presence in the frontcourt by taking exactly what the defense gave him rather than forcing contested looks. His active hands in the passing lanes and disciplined closeouts fueled a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 26.6m -14.8
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Total offensive passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him, creating spacing nightmares for the primary ball-handlers. Even with decent positional defense, his inability to threaten the rim resulted in a severe negative lineup impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 14.7m -8.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 10.7m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Injected immediate life into the second unit with a barrage of quick-trigger perimeter shots against closing defenders. This hyper-efficient scoring burst maximized his brief floor time and swung the momentum without requiring high usage.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 10.7m -6.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0