GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S G. Santos 33.4m
27
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

Relentless rim pressure and exceptional finishing through contact drove a dominant offensive showing. He consistently beat closeouts and made the right reads, while also contributing timely digs and stunts on the defensive end. His ability to take over the offensive load during a crucial third-quarter run cemented his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +25.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 33.4m -18.6
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S B. Podziemski 33.3m
22
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.4

Tremendous positional rebounding and elite defensive anticipation defined a highly productive two-way performance. He was a menace in the passing lanes, turning deflections into immediate transition offense. Despite some streaky finishing at the rim, his constant motor and connective passing kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.6
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S D. Green 32.2m
6
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.0

Elite defensive orchestration and high-level playmaking were completely undone by a string of live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. He generated tremendous value through deflections and weak-side rim protection, but forced passes into crowded passing lanes proved costly. A frustrating fourth-quarter stretch of unforced errors ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 32.2m -18.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S K. Porziņģis 28.8m
28
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.9

A masterclass in floor spacing and rim protection completely dictated the geometry of the game. His deep drop coverage deterred drives all night, while his pick-and-pop gravity pulled the opposing center away from the basket. Hitting contested trailing threes in transition broke the opponent's defensive spirit and fueled his massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 28.8m -16.0
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S W. Richard 24.5m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a nice offensive boost, but he struggled to navigate screens and gave up too much ground defensively. Opponents actively hunted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his timely perimeter makes. A lack of physicality on the defensive glass also allowed critical second-chance opportunities that hurt his bottom line.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 24.5m -13.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
L. Cryer 27.3m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

A high volume of forced, off-balance jumpers derailed offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to set up in transition. While he hit a few timely perimeter shots, his inability to create separation against physical coverage resulted in empty possessions. His lack of secondary playmaking meant that when the shot wasn't falling, he offered little else to positively impact the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 27.3m -15.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
G. Payton II 24.9m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Opportunistic cutting and elite point-of-attack defense generated solid box score value, but spacing issues cramped the half-court offense. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, muddying the paint for primary creators and leading to stalled possessions. A few mistimed gambles for steals in the second half compromised the defensive shell, keeping his overall impact hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 24.9m -13.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
P. Spencer 24.9m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with smart off-ball movement, but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. His positive offensive contributions were offset by poor screen navigation, allowing opposing guards to walk into comfortable pull-up jumpers. A late-game stretch of blown defensive assignments ultimately pushed his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Looked completely disconnected from the offensive flow, failing to register a single shot attempt while clogging the paint. He was consistently late on defensive rotations, surrendering deep post position and easy drop-off passes. A brief, ineffective stint forced the coaching staff to quickly pivot to smaller, more mobile lineups.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 7.8m -4.3
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
M. Leons 2.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Rushed a poor shot attempt during a fleeting appearance and struggled to catch up to the speed of the game. He provided minimal resistance on defense and failed to secure loose balls in his area. A forgettable garbage-time shift yielded negative value across the board.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S L. Black 42.0m
4
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.5

Heavy minutes magnified the damage of a rough shooting night where poor finishing at the rim tanked his overall value. Despite providing solid point-of-attack defense, his inability to punish drop coverage stalled the half-court offense. The staggering negative total reflects too many stalled possessions and offensive dead ends when he was initiating the attack.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 42.0m -23.5
Impact -16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S B. Carrington 25.8m
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Blistering perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive lift, but defensive invisibility and off-ball tracking errors gave those points right back. He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions, forcing the defense into rotation and conceding high-value looks. A late-game stretch of poor defensive communication ultimately pushed his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 25.8m -14.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S A. Sarr 22.5m
8
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Strong activity on the glass and high-energy hustle plays kept him engaged, but erratic shot selection severely limited his effectiveness. Settling for heavily contested jumpers rather than rolling hard to the rim dragged down his offensive rhythm. His rim protection was adequate, yet the inefficient volume ultimately hurt the team's spacing and momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 22.5m -12.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S T. Johnson 22.1m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Perimeter defensive lapses and poor closeouts allowed opponents to find easy rhythm, driving his negative overall impact. While he found some success attacking the paint, a string of forced three-pointers early in the shot clock killed offensive momentum. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, making him a liability on the floor despite decent interior efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.1m -12.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S B. Coulibaly 19.1m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

A massive scoring surge fueled his positive impact, capitalizing on aggressive drives and confident perimeter shooting to break out of a recent slump. His defensive versatility anchored the wing during a crucial second-half run, generating key stops that translated into transition opportunities. The overall value was slightly dampened by a few empty possessions, but his two-way aggression set the tone.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
W. Riley 29.2m
22
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.6

Elite shot-making and decisive drives created an offensive clinic that completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. He paired this scoring gravity with excellent weak-side defensive rotations, blowing up multiple lob attempts. His ability to consistently punish mismatches in isolation defined a highly efficient and impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 29.2m -16.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

A sharp regression from his recent hot streak saw him bricking open spot-up looks and stalling the offensive flow. While he maintained decent positional defense, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. The negative total impact stems heavily from empty offensive trips and a failure to punish defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 25.3m -14.2
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
A. Gill 25.0m
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

Surgical cutting and excellent spatial awareness around the basket yielded a highly efficient interior performance. He anchored the second unit with phenomenal help defense, consistently stepping in to absorb contact and disrupt drives. His veteran positioning during a chaotic third-quarter stretch stabilized the lineup and drove a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 25.0m -13.9
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
J. Hardy 12.0m
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Pure microwave scoring from beyond the arc masked some glaring defensive deficiencies during his minutes. He was a turnstile at the point of attack, but his ability to hit heavily contested pull-up jumpers bailed out several broken possessions. A blistering second-quarter shooting display single-handedly kept the offense afloat while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.0%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S. Cooper 10.8m
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized a short stint by injecting immediate pace and generating high-quality looks through dribble penetration. His relentless energy on loose balls created extra possessions, though he occasionally over-helped on defense and surrendered open corner looks. A quick flurry of transition playmaking in the second quarter perfectly encapsulated his sparkplug role.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 10.8m -6.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
J. Watkins 6.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Kept things simple during a brief cameo, executing defensive assignments without making costly mistakes. He capitalized on his lone offensive opportunity by spacing the floor correctly, though his overall footprint was minimal. A solid rotational shift that maintained the status quo without swinging the momentum either way.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 6.1m -3.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0