GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Nate Williams 46.6m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Volume-heavy approach bogged down the offense, but his negative impact was truly driven by getting targeted in the pick-and-roll. Strong hustle on 50/50 balls wasn't enough to offset the damage caused by his late closeouts and costly reaching fouls.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.6m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 46.6m -24.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Will Richard 25.6m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

Hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to recover and reset without penalty. A handful of blown switches in semi-transition and poor transition fouls further compounded a highly ineffective stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 25.6m -13.3
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LJ Cryer 23.5m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Bled value by constantly dying on screens, forcing the frontcourt into disadvantageous emergency switches that led to easy drop-offs. Although he found some success in isolation, his lazy entry passes resulted in deflections that killed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 23.5m -12.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 20.7m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Flipped the script by confidently knocking down perimeter looks when the defense dared him to shoot. His masterful orchestration of the weak-side defense blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 20.7m -10.8
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Thrived as a connective playmaker, instantly punishing defensive rotations with rapid-fire extra passes. His knack for executing timely digs in the post and drawing offensive fouls provided immense hidden value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 17.2m -8.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 38.0m
14
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.0

Dominated the ball to a fault, frequently pounding the air out of it before settling for heavily contested floaters. While his active hands generated a few deflections, his poor shot quality acted as live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 38.0m -19.8
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
Malevy Leons 29.4m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Failed to finish through contact, repeatedly leaving points on the board when attacking the basket. Despite a relentless motor that secured several extra possessions, his tendency to commit silly over-the-back fouls neutralized his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 29.4m -15.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Carved out deep post position with ease, sealing off smaller defenders to create high-percentage finishing angles. His bone-crushing screens freed up the guards, though occasional struggles defending in space kept his impact from soaring even higher.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 29.0m -15.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Seth Curry 10.1m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Injected instant spacing into the lineup, punishing defenders the moment they lost track of him in semi-transition. His relentless off-ball motion caused multiple defensive miscommunications, creating a ripple effect of open driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 10.1m -5.3
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 32.7m
15
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.0

Creative passing sequences were completely overshadowed by sloppy ball security that fed the opponent's transition game. Even with relentless point-of-attack defense, his tendency to force skip passes into traffic severely capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 32.7m -17.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
41
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
+34.5

Completely broke the opponent's offensive scheme by erasing shots at the rim and deterring drives with sheer length. Offensively, his catch radius on lobs and soft touch in the paint made him an unstoppable focal point.

Shooting
FG 16/22 (72.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +36.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.1
Raw total +49.5
Avg player in 28.9m -15.0
Impact +34.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 27.8m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.4

Impact cratered due to a string of careless live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent fast breaks. While he managed to contest a few shots on the perimeter, his tendency to bite on pump fakes led to costly foul trouble that dragged down his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 27.8m -14.4
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Trigger-happy approach from the outside backfired, but it was his costly offensive fouls and illegal screens that truly tanked his value. Getting repeatedly blown by on the perimeter exacerbated his negative footprint, forcing the defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.6m -13.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 24.7m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Dictated the tempo by relentlessly attacking the seams of the defense before they could establish their half-court shell. Active hands at the point of attack disrupted opposing sets, fueling a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +56.6
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 24.7m -12.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Punished defensive lapses by relocating perfectly along the perimeter for uncontested looks. A masterclass in mistake-free basketball, he avoided cheap fouls and consistently boxed out larger opponents to secure the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Bully-ball drives repeatedly hit a wall, resulting in wild attempts through multiple defenders. Occasional bursts of energy on the offensive glass couldn't mask his tendency to lose his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 25.7m -13.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 23.6m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operated as a stabilizing force by making quick, decisive reads and refusing to force the issue against set defenses. His disciplined closeouts and flawless rotational timing ensured the second unit maintained its structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.6m -12.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Failed to bend the defense, allowing his matchup to freely roam and clog driving lanes. Despite battling admirably for loose balls, his complete lack of offensive utility dragged down the lineup's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 17.1m -9.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief and disjointed stint where his lack of shooting gravity allowed the defense to pack the paint. While he executed drop coverage adequately, his offensive invisibility made it impossible to sustain positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -61.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.7m -3.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1