GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 35.2m
8
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite defensive anchoring and active rotations were completely undone by a disastrous shooting performance. Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks stalled the offense and allowed the defense to sag off him. The defensive brilliance couldn't overcome the negative value of his wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 35.2m -19.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
25
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.7

Masterful shot selection and decisive drives to the basket fueled a massive offensive impact score. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, collapsing the defense and creating high-value opportunities. Solid defensive positioning rounded out a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 35.2m -19.2
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gui Santos 31.2m
25
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Sustained a brilliant stretch of efficient scoring by consistently finding soft spots in the defense for high-percentage looks. His offensive gravity carried his overall rating, masking relatively quiet defensive metrics. The ability to maintain his scoring rhythm without forcing bad shots was the catalyst for his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 31.2m -16.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc ruined his floor-spacing value and dragged down his net rating. The defense ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. Minimal rim protection further compounded a highly ineffective outing.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 27.9m -15.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Continued a brutal shooting slump that severely handicapped the team's offensive flow. Despite generating fantastic defensive pressure and racking up hustle stats, his bricked open looks destroyed offensive momentum. The sheer volume of wasted possessions easily erased his elite point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.8%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 25.8m -14.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Relentless rebounding from the guard position and suffocating perimeter defense drove his positive value. Even with a dip in his recent hyper-efficient scoring, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer effort was game-changing. He disrupted passing lanes and secured long rebounds to tilt the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 27.5m -14.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
LJ Cryer 24.7m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers resulted in poor efficiency and a negative overall rating. He offered virtually no resistance on defense and failed to contribute in the hustle categories. The one-dimensional offensive approach proved detrimental when the shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 24.7m -13.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 16.8m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to register a single point and killing team spacing. While he provided a few solid defensive rotations, his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to double-team elsewhere. The lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a heavily negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 15.6m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Capitalized on his minutes with highly efficient scoring, punishing defensive lapses with smart cuts and timely shooting. His offensive burst provided a much-needed lift, outperforming his recent averages. Sound defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 36.7m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.6

Despite highly efficient shooting splits, his overall impact cratered due to a lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle plays. The offensive production was heavily offset by giving up high-value looks on the other end. A lethargic off-ball presence allowed opponents to exploit his matchups repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 36.7m -19.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Broke out of a recent efficiency slump with high-quality shot selection from beyond the arc. Surprisingly strong point-of-attack defense bolstered his overall rating, proving he was engaged on both ends of the floor. The combination of efficient perimeter scoring and disruptive defensive rotations drove his positive net value.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 34.4m -18.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Evan Mobley 32.3m
12
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Defensive versatility anchored his overall value, suppressing opponent rim attempts and generating crucial stops. While his offensive volume dipped slightly below his recent averages, his interior efficiency remained steady. A balanced two-way effort kept his net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 32.3m -17.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Strus 27.9m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite perimeter shot-making drove a massive offensive rating, punishing drop coverages and late closeouts. His red-hot shooting from deep stretched the floor vertically, maintaining a highly efficient three-game streak. The sheer scoring gravity outweighed average defensive metrics to secure a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 27.9m -15.2
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 23.9m
16
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.1

Dominated the paint through relentless rebounding and elite rim protection, yielding a massive defensive impact score. His ability to secure extra possessions and deter drives completely altered the opponent's shot profile. Continued a highly efficient finishing streak around the basket to round out a stellar performance.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/12 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 23.9m -13.1
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Merrill 28.2m
3
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.0

A severe perimeter shooting freeze completely derailed his offensive value, failing to punish open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Without his typical floor-spacing gravity, the offense stagnated during his minutes. Marginal hustle contributions weren't nearly enough to salvage a heavily negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 28.2m -15.3
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 22.1m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Offensive struggles heavily weighed down his rating as he failed to convert on multiple high-leverage looks. Though he remained active defensively and fought through screens, the lack of scoring punch negated those efforts. A sharp drop-off from his usual offensive rhythm defined a frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 22.1m -12.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a crucial offensive spark off the bench by aggressively attacking the paint and creating quality looks. His scoring punch significantly exceeded recent trends, keeping the second unit afloat. Average defensive metrics limited his ceiling, but the efficient playmaking ensured a positive night.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.3m -11.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Limited touches and a lack of offensive involvement suppressed his overall impact during a short stint. While he provided adequate energy and hustle on the glass, he failed to establish a meaningful interior presence. The inability to command defensive attention resulted in a slightly negative net score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.2m -7.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0