Golden State Warriors

Western Conference

Golden State
Warriors

38-46
L1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Jimmy Butler III
Forward Yr 14 38G (38S)
+14.7
20.0 pts
5.6 reb
4.9 ast
31.1 min

This midseason stretch was defined by a classic veteran slow-burn, transitioning from passive facilitation into ruthless, high-efficiency scoring. On 12/25 vs DAL, Butler flirted with a triple-double by posting 14 points, nine rebounds, and nine assists. Yet he registered a pedestrian +0.4 Impact in that contest because he deferred too often, taking just ten shots instead of pressuring the defense as a primary scoring threat. The switch flipped in mid-January. Carving up the opposition during a 01/16 vs NYK masterclass, Butler poured in 32 points on 14-of-22 shooting to generate a massive +35.4 Impact. He delivered a similarly dominant performance on 01/12 vs ATL, where his 30 points and aggressive shot creation earned a +27.7 Impact. When Butler stops overpassing and hunts his own offense with this level of surgical accuracy, he remains an absolute nightmare for any defensive scheme.

Stephen Curry
Guard Yr 16 45G (43S)
+13.4
26.5 pts
3.5 reb
4.7 ast
31.1 min

Stephen Curry’s late-season stretch was defined by erratic shooting swings and a brief, shocking relegation to the second unit. The veteran guard obviously still possessed his lethal ceiling, completely torching the perimeter on 01/23 vs DAL. He buried eight triples on his way to 38 points, yielding a massive +24.0 Impact score fueled by sheer shot-making dominance. However, his counting stats occasionally masked deeper on-court flaws. Take the 01/20 vs MIA matchup, where Curry tallied 19 points and 11 assists but suffered a -1.4 Impact score because defensive bleeding and empty possessions entirely negated his playmaking. Looking for a spark two months later, the coaching staff actually brought him off the pine on 04/05 vs HOU. Curry embraced the unusual reserve role with ruthless efficiency, pouring in 29 points on 11-of-21 shooting to post a stellar +20.2 Impact score.

Charles Bassey
Center-Forward Yr 4 6G
+5.6
8.8 pts
6.0 reb
0.8 ast
16.9 min
Brandin Podziemski
Guard Yr 2 84G (45S)
+5.3
14.0 pts
5.2 reb
3.6 ast
28.7 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency. Brandin Podziemski frequently let hidden mistakes erode his impressive offensive flashes. Look no further than Mar 23 vs DAL, where he stuffed the stat sheet with 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 6 assists. Despite that gaudy traditional production, poor transition defense dragged his net influence down to a -2.1 impact score. Conversely, when he stopped forcing his own offense, his true utility emerged. During Mar 10 vs CHI, Podziemski managed just 9 points but still carved out a +1.2 impact score by pivoting away from scoring to become an absolute menace in the margins. He perfected that gritty formula on Mar 20 vs DET, generating a massive +8.8 impact score through relentless energy on 50/50 balls and elite positional defense. His overall value clearly hinges on embracing the dirty work rather than hunting empty statistics.

Kristaps Porziņģis
Forward-Center Yr 10 17G (13S)
+4.6
16.1 pts
5.1 reb
2.4 ast
23.4 min

Kristaps Porziņģis spent this stretch riding a frustrating seesaw between unstoppable offensive force and passive perimeter liability. When his stroke caught fire, he was utterly dominant. He erupted for 28 points and a massive +23.1 impact on 03/27 vs WAS by drilling five three-pointers. Yet, just two days prior on 03/25 vs BKN, he managed a respectable 17 points but posted a dismal -7.7 impact. That negative mark stemmed from hidden defensive lapses and a total lack of perimeter gravity that dragged down his overall effectiveness despite the decent scoring total. On the flip side, Porziņģis occasionally generated value when his jumper abandoned him. During his outing on 04/12 vs LAC, he clanked all four of his attempts from deep and scored just 12 points, but still manufactured a +5.4 impact. He salvaged that ugly shooting night by crashing the glass for eight rebounds and executing the unglamorous dirty work inside.

Moses Moody
Guard Yr 4 60G (49S)
+2.6
12.1 pts
3.3 reb
1.6 ast
25.7 min

Moses Moody finally seized a full-time starting role and morphed into a lethal, high-volume perimeter weapon during this twenty-game stretch. He was absolutely devastating on 01/28 vs UTA, erupting for 26 points on blistering 9-of-15 shooting. That performance earned him a massive +27.6 impact score because he ruthlessly punished defensive rotations with elite shot selection. He did not always need to fill the scoring column to swing a game, however. During the 01/20 vs MIA matchup, Moody managed just 13 points but still posted a stellar +13.4 impact score by providing relentless defensive hustle and timely floor-spacing without demanding the basketball. Still, his heavy reliance on the three-pointer occasionally hurt his overall value when the jumper vanished. On 02/05 vs PHX, he clanked his way to 6 points on 2-of-7 shooting, resulting in a -5.8 impact score as his offensive stagnation bogged down the entire unit. Ultimately, this run turned him into a highly dangerous two-way fixture.

De'Anthony Melton
Guard Yr 7 51G (24S)
+1.4
12.3 pts
3.4 reb
2.6 ast
23.0 min

Extreme volatility and a late-season demotion to the bench defined De'Anthony Melton’s maddening spring campaign. When his touch was right, he looked like a legitimate offensive engine, peaking on 03/16 vs WAS with 27 points on a blistering 12-of-17 from the floor. His aggressive interior finishing and flawless shot selection that night generated a massive +23.7 Impact score. However, those highs were frequently erased by total offensive vanishing acts, most notably on 03/23 vs DAL. Despite grabbing six rebounds, Melton posted a disastrous -22.4 Impact score by missing all six of his field goal attempts and completely stalling the half-court offense. Even when he managed double-digit scoring, his value could plummet due to hidden costs. During the 03/20 vs DET matchup, he scored 14 points but registered a -2.6 Impact score because his inefficient volume shooting and total lack of playmaking actively harmed the team's rhythm.

Jonathan Kuminga
Forward Yr 4 20G (13S)
+1.3
12.1 pts
5.8 reb
2.5 ast
23.8 min

Jonathan Kuminga's late-season stretch off the bench was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between hyper-efficient sparkplug and offensive black hole. His worst tendencies surfaced during a disastrous 03/21 vs GSW matchup, where he forced awful attempts against his former team to finish with just 2 points on 1-of-9 shooting. That selfish shot selection cratered the offense, yielding a brutal -13.5 impact score. Yet, he immediately flipped the script on 03/23 vs MEM. By taking in-rhythm looks and draining 4-of-6 from beyond the arc, he poured in 16 points to post a massive +16.3 impact score. Perhaps most interesting was his gritty outing on 04/10 vs CLE. Despite a miserable shooting night where he went 4-of-12 from the floor and missed all six of his three-pointers, Kuminga still salvaged a +10.5 impact score by locking in defensively and creating extra possessions through relentless hustle.

Al Horford
Center-Forward Yr 18 47G (13S)
-0.3
8.4 pts
4.8 reb
2.5 ast
21.7 min

Al Horford's mid-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, alternating between vintage floor-stretching clinics and nights where his aging legs simply failed him. He turned back the clock on 02/22 vs DEN, pouring in 22 points and dishing out seven assists while draining six threes to generate a massive +16.1 Impact. That elite mark stemmed entirely from his flawless shot selection and crisp connective passing. But that offensive rhythm frequently vanished, leaving behind empty stat lines like his 04/15 vs LAC appearance. Despite a relatively high-scoring output of 14 points on an efficient 5-for-8 from the floor, Horford dragged the lineup down to a -4.3 Impact because he grabbed just three rebounds and completely abandoned his playmaking duties with zero assists. Conversely, he occasionally squeezed out positive value on true low-scoring nights. On 02/28 vs LAL, he tallied just 8 points but managed a +0.6 Impact by anchoring the defense and securing five rebounds. When the jumper isn't falling, the veteran must rely entirely on his basketball IQ to survive.

Gary Payton II
Guard Yr 9 75G (1S)
-1.5
7.4 pts
3.6 reb
1.7 ast
15.9 min

This late-season stretch was defined by relentless rim pressure and bizarrely dominant rebounding from a bench guard, turning Payton into a chaotic two-way catalyst. He occasionally fell into the trap of perimeter tunnel vision, like during the 02/22 vs DEN matchup where his 15 points yielded a -1.1 Impact score because he settled for eight three-point attempts and failed to record a single assist. Yet when he embraced his role as a gritty interior presence, his value skyrocketed regardless of his scoring totals. Look at his performance on 04/02 vs CLE; he scored just 8 points, but his staggering 12 rebounds generated a massive +11.9 Impact score by securing extra possessions and terminating opponent attacks. He was even more lethal when he completely abandoned the three-point line to attack the basket. During the 03/23 vs DAL contest, Payton converted a flawless 8-for-8 from the floor to post 17 points and a +13.6 Impact score, punishing the defense with pure efficiency. While his energy visibly waned during a mid-April slump, his ability to swing games through pure hustle made him an indispensable rotation piece.

Buddy Hield
Guard Yr 9 44G (3S)
-1.7
8.0 pts
2.5 reb
1.5 ast
17.4 min

Buddy Hield’s mid-season stretch was a chaotic pendulum swing between flamethrower efficiency and unplayable cold spells at the end of the bench. He briefly looked like the league's most lethal reserve during the 01/21 vs TOR matchup, erupting for 25 points on a flawless 6-for-6 from beyond the arc. That pristine shot selection and perimeter gravity earned him a massive +25.9 Impact score. However, when his jumper vanished, his on-court value cratered. During the 01/27 vs MIN contest, Hield clanked his way to 5 points on an abysmal 2-for-10 shooting night. Because he offers minimal secondary playmaking when his shots aren't falling, those forced, empty possessions dragged him down to a -10.8 Impact. After a brutal string of late-season cameos where his minutes evaporated, he finally relocated his stroke in the 04/12 vs MIA game, pouring in 31 points and seven triples to post a blistering +25.1 Impact.

Gui Santos
Forward Yr 2 70G (32S)
-1.9
9.3 pts
4.0 reb
2.4 ast
20.8 min

This late-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, as Gui Santos toggled between looking like a budding offensive focal point and a detrimental chucker. He put everything together on 03/07 vs OKC, posting 22 points and 11 rebounds to generate a massive +19.5 Impact score driven by relentless rebounding and confident scoring. Just three days later on 03/10 vs CHI, that same aggression betrayed him. Despite scoring a respectable 17 points, he dragged the team down to a -9.4 Impact score because of brutal shot selection and a forced 7-of-19 shooting night. However, Santos also flashed the ability to be a gritty role player when his shot wasn't falling. On 03/02 vs LAC, he managed a +1.0 Impact score despite scoring just five points because he crashed the glass for 10 crucial rebounds and generated extra possessions. To take the next leap, he desperately needs to find a middle ground between reckless volume and consistent fundamental execution.

Seth Curry
Guard Yr 12 11G
-2.4
6.5 pts
1.1 reb
0.9 ast
12.2 min
Quinten Post
Center Yr 1 67G (35S)
-3.1
7.7 pts
4.0 reb
1.4 ast
17.3 min

Quinten Post's mid-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, operating as a volatile big man whose value plummeted the moment his jumper stopped falling. When he forced the issue from the perimeter, the results were disastrous, perfectly illustrated on 03/09 vs UTA. In that start, a brutal 0-for-6 night from deep dragged him down to a -7.4 Impact score despite reaching 10 points. Yet, when he stopped shooting entirely, his hesitance crippled the offense just as badly. During a 20-minute stint on 03/05 vs HOU, Post attempted just two field goals. That passivity resulted in a staggering -15.8 Impact score, as his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to freely ignore him. He finally found his rhythm on 03/15 vs NYK, pouring in 22 points on 9-of-16 shooting. By confidently knocking down four triples and keeping the defense honest, he generated a +3.1 Impact score and looked like a legitimate rotation threat.

Will Richard
Guard Yr 0 70G (21S)
-3.8
6.3 pts
2.5 reb
1.3 ast
19.7 min

This stretch was defined by a maddening inconsistency where brief flashes of offensive brilliance were quickly swallowed by long, agonizing disappearing acts. Richard briefly looked like a legitimate rotation piece during a spot start on 02/25 vs MEM, racking up 21 points, five rebounds, and six assists. His aggressive shot creation and crisp secondary playmaking drove a stellar +14.4 Impact score that night. However, that momentum completely evaporated by the time he started on 03/16 vs WAS. Despite logging 32 minutes, Richard posted a brutal -13.4 Impact, failing to score a single point on 0-for-6 shooting while dragging down the lineup with empty possessions and poor defensive rotations. Even when he finally found his stroke again, hitting all four of his three-point attempts for 12 points on 03/23 vs DAL, his overall influence remained surprisingly muted. He managed just a +2.3 Impact in that contest because his perfect outside shooting was offset by a complete lack of rebounding and nonexistent defensive disruption. You simply cannot survive in a modern NBA rotation when you log zero points in nine separate games over a two-month span.

Trayce Jackson-Davis
Forward Yr 2 36G (1S)
-3.9
4.2 pts
3.1 reb
0.9 ast
11.4 min

This stretch of the season was defined by Trayce Jackson-Davis vanishing into the darkest corners of the bench. He actually started this block with a massive surge on 02/08 vs IND, racking up 10 points and 10 rebounds in just 16 minutes to generate a stellar +15.2 Impact score. That brief flash of dominant rebounding and efficient interior finishing quickly faded into a string of erratic garbage-time appearances. By the time he hit the floor on 03/11 vs NOP, he posted a brutal -9.5 Impact score in a measly three minutes because he forced three terrible, rushed shots (0-for-3 FG) instead of letting the offense flow. Things hit rock bottom on 03/23 vs UTA. Jackson-Davis logged seven minutes of pure cardio, grabbing a single rebound while putting up zeros across the rest of the box score to earn a staggering -17.4 Impact score. When a big man stops crashing the glass and starts rushing contested looks in limited minutes, his on-court value evaporates entirely.

LJ Cryer
Guard Yr 0 18G (1S)
-3.9
8.2 pts
1.6 reb
1.0 ast
16.2 min
Nate Williams
Guard Yr 3 14G (2S)
-4.0
8.0 pts
2.1 reb
1.0 ast
17.1 min
Pat Spencer
Guard Yr 2 67G (14S)
-4.3
7.1 pts
2.4 reb
3.5 ast
18.4 min

This late-season stretch was defined by erratic minutes and a maddening inability to string together consistent two-way play. When thrust into a heavy workload, his glaring inefficiency often tanked his value on the floor. Take the 04/07 vs SAC matchup, where he scored a respectable 14 points in a rare 41-minute start, but posted a -5.8 Impact score because he stalled out possessions by chucking up 16 shots to get there. However, he occasionally found ways to tilt the math without filling the scoring column. During the 03/29 vs DEN game, Spencer managed a +1.9 Impact despite scoring just 7 points on woeful 3-for-9 shooting. He salvaged that outing entirely through sharp playmaking and hustle, dishing out 8 assists and grabbing 5 rebounds to keep the offense humming. He did manage one genuine scoring burst on 03/21 vs ATL, pouring in 18 points on an efficient 8-of-14 from the floor to earn a stretch-high +8.4 Impact. Ultimately, those brief flashes of offensive rhythm were buried under too many nights of empty usage and misfired jumpers.

Draymond Green
Forward Yr 13 70G (70S)
-5.4
8.3 pts
5.5 reb
5.6 ast
27.7 min

This stretch was defined by a steep offensive decline that frequently rendered Green a glaring liability on the floor. His inability to pose a consistent scoring threat dragged down his overall effectiveness, even when he padded the box score with rebounds and assists. Look at 03/23 vs DAL. Green put up a respectable 11 points, seven rebounds, and six assists, but his -8.9 Impact reveals the hidden cost of his night. He bricked all five of his three-point attempts, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and crowd the paint. The floor fell out entirely on 04/07 vs SAC, where he managed just a single point and generated a brutal -17.2 Impact because his total offensive passivity forced his team to play four-on-five. Conversely, he occasionally salvaged his value without shooting, like on 04/05 vs HOU. Despite scoring only seven points, he posted a +1.3 Impact by dissecting the defense with 12 assists to manufacture clean looks for his teammates. Unfortunately, those masterclasses in distribution couldn't consistently mask his crippling shooting woes.

Malevy Leons
Forward Yr 1 25G (2S)
-6.4
3.3 pts
2.1 reb
0.9 ast
11.1 min

This eight-game stretch was defined by a harsh reality check regarding heavy minutes, followed immediately by a successful recalibration as a spark-plug reserve. When thrust into the starting lineup on 04/07 vs SAC, Leons looked entirely overwhelmed. Despite grabbing five rebounds and dishing three assists, his brutal 1-for-5 shooting cratered his overall effectiveness, resulting in a disastrous -17.4 impact score. A quick demotion fixed everything on 04/09 vs LAL. Playing 24 minutes off the bench, he poured in 12 points on 4-of-8 shooting while adding four rebounds and three assists, generating a team-lifting +6.0 impact score by finally converting his offensive touches. He maintained that momentum on 04/12 vs LAC, posting a +1.4 impact score by smartly taking what the defense gave him for eight points on a highly efficient 3-of-4 from the floor. Leons clearly thrives when asked to provide short bursts of efficient energy rather than carrying the burden of a starter's workload.

Omer Yurtseven
Center Yr 3 9G
-7.1
3.8 pts
3.3 reb
0.9 ast
11.6 min
L
@ PHX PHX
96 GSW PHX 111
PHX @ PHX
96 111
Fri, Apr 17
Play-In Analysis
-15
W
@ LAC LAC
126 GSW LAC 121
LAC @ LAC
126 121
Wed, Apr 15
Play-In Analysis
+5
L
@ LAC LAC
110 GSW LAC 115
LAC @ LAC
110 115
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-5
L
@ SAC SAC
118 GSW SAC 124
SAC @ SAC
118 124
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
-6
L
vs LAL LAL
119 LAL GSW 103
LAL vs LAL
103 119
Thu, Apr 9
Analysis
-16
W
vs SAC SAC
105 SAC GSW 110
SAC vs SAC
110 105
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
+5
L
vs HOU HOU
117 HOU GSW 116
HOU vs HOU
116 117
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
-1
L
vs CLE CLE
118 CLE GSW 111
CLE vs CLE
111 118
Thu, Apr 2
Analysis
-7
L
vs SAS SAS
127 SAS GSW 113
SAS vs SAS
113 127
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
-14
L
@ DEN DEN
93 GSW DEN 116
DEN @ DEN
93 116
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
-23
W
vs WAS WAS
126 WAS GSW 131
WAS vs WAS
131 126
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
+5
W
vs BKN BKN
106 BKN GSW 109
BKN vs BKN
109 106
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
+3
W
@ DAL DAL
137 GSW DAL 131
DAL @ DAL
137 131
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
+6
L
@ ATL ATL
110 GSW ATL 126
ATL @ ATL
110 126
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
-16
L
@ DET DET
101 GSW DET 115
DET @ DET
101 115
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
-14
L
@ BOS BOS
99 GSW BOS 120
BOS @ BOS
99 120
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
-21
W
@ WAS WAS
125 GSW WAS 117
WAS @ WAS
125 117
Mon, Mar 16
Analysis
+8
L
@ NYK NYK
107 GSW NYK 110
NYK @ NYK
107 110
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
-3
L
vs MIN MIN
127 MIN GSW 117
MIN vs MIN
117 127
Fri, Mar 13
Analysis
-10
L
vs CHI CHI
130 CHI GSW 124
CHI vs CHI
124 130
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
-6
L
@ UTA UTA
116 GSW UTA 119
UTA @ UTA
116 119
Mon, Mar 9
Analysis
-3
L
@ OKC OKC
97 GSW OKC 104
OKC @ OKC
97 104
Sat, Mar 7
Analysis
-7
W
@ HOU HOU
115 GSW HOU 113
HOU @ HOU
115 113
Thu, Mar 5
Analysis
+2
L
vs LAC LAC
114 LAC GSW 101
LAC vs LAC
101 114
Mon, Mar 2
Analysis
-13
L
vs LAL LAL
129 LAL GSW 101
LAL vs LAL
101 129
Sat, Feb 28
Analysis
-28
W
@ MEM MEM
133 GSW MEM 112
MEM @ MEM
133 112
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
+21
L
@ NOP NOP
109 GSW NOP 113
NOP @ NOP
109 113
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
-4
W
vs DEN DEN
117 DEN GSW 128
DEN vs DEN
128 117
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+11
L
vs BOS BOS
121 BOS GSW 110
BOS vs BOS
110 121
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
-11
L
vs SAS SAS
126 SAS GSW 113
SAS vs SAS
113 126
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
-13
W
vs MEM MEM
113 MEM GSW 114
MEM vs MEM
114 113
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
+1
L
@ LAL LAL
99 GSW LAL 105
LAL @ LAL
99 105
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
-6
W
@ PHX PHX
101 GSW PHX 97
PHX @ PHX
101 97
Thu, Feb 5
Analysis
+4
L
vs PHI PHI
113 PHI GSW 94
PHI vs PHI
94 113
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
-19
L
vs DET DET
131 DET GSW 124
DET vs DET
124 131
Fri, Jan 30
Analysis
-7
W
@ UTA UTA
140 GSW UTA 124
UTA @ UTA
140 124
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+16
L
@ MIN MIN
83 GSW MIN 108
MIN @ MIN
83 108
Tue, Jan 27
Analysis
-25
W
@ MIN MIN
111 GSW MIN 85
MIN @ MIN
111 85
Sun, Jan 25
Analysis
+26
L
@ DAL DAL
115 GSW DAL 123
DAL @ DAL
115 123
Fri, Jan 23
Analysis
-8
L
vs TOR TOR
145 TOR GSW 127
TOR vs TOR
127 145
Wed, Jan 21
Analysis
-18
W
vs MIA MIA
112 MIA GSW 135
MIA vs MIA
135 112
Tue, Jan 20
Analysis
+23
W
vs CHA CHA
116 CHA GSW 136
CHA vs CHA
136 116
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
+20
W
vs NYK NYK
113 NYK GSW 126
NYK vs NYK
126 113
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
+13
W
vs POR POR
97 POR GSW 119
POR vs POR
119 97
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
+22
L
vs ATL ATL
124 ATL GSW 111
ATL vs ATL
111 124
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
-13
W
vs SAC SAC
103 SAC GSW 137
SAC vs SAC
137 103
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+34
W
vs MIL MIL
113 MIL GSW 120
MIL vs MIL
120 113
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
+7
L
@ LAC LAC
102 GSW LAC 103
LAC @ LAC
102 103
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
-1
W
vs UTA UTA
114 UTA GSW 123
UTA vs UTA
123 114
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
+9
L
vs OKC OKC
131 OKC GSW 94
OKC vs OKC
94 131
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
-37
W
@ CHA CHA
132 GSW CHA 125
CHA @ CHA
132 125
Wed, Dec 31
Analysis
+7
W
@ BKN BKN
120 GSW BKN 107
BKN @ BKN
120 107
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+13
L
@ TOR TOR
127 GSW TOR 141
TOR @ TOR
127 141
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
-14
W
vs DAL DAL
116 DAL GSW 126
DAL vs DAL
126 116
Thu, Dec 25
Analysis
+10
W
vs ORL ORL
97 ORL GSW 120
ORL vs ORL
120 97
Tue, Dec 23
Analysis
+23
W
vs PHX PHX
116 PHX GSW 119
PHX vs PHX
119 116
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
+3
L
@ PHX PHX
98 GSW PHX 99
PHX @ PHX
98 99
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
-1
L
@ POR POR
131 GSW POR 136
POR @ POR
131 136
Mon, Dec 15
Analysis
-5
L
vs MIN MIN
127 MIN GSW 120
MIN vs MIN
120 127
Sat, Dec 13
Analysis
-7
W
@ CHI CHI
123 GSW CHI 91
CHI @ CHI
123 91
Mon, Dec 8
Analysis
+32
W
@ CLE CLE
99 GSW CLE 94
CLE @ CLE
99 94
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
+5
L
@ PHI PHI
98 GSW PHI 99
PHI @ PHI
98 99
Fri, Dec 5
Analysis
-1
L
vs OKC OKC
124 OKC GSW 112
OKC vs OKC
112 124
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
-12
W
vs NOP NOP
96 NOP GSW 104
NOP vs NOP
104 96
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+8
L
vs HOU HOU
104 HOU GSW 100
HOU vs HOU
100 104
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
-4
W
vs UTA UTA
117 UTA GSW 134
UTA vs UTA
134 117
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
+17
L
vs POR POR
127 POR GSW 123
POR vs POR
123 127
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
-4
L
@ MIA MIA
96 GSW MIA 110
MIA @ MIA
96 110
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
-14
L
@ ORL ORL
113 GSW ORL 121
ORL @ ORL
113 121
Wed, Nov 19
Analysis
-8
W
@ NOP NOP
124 GSW NOP 106
NOP @ NOP
124 106
Mon, Nov 17
Analysis
+18
W
@ SAS SAS
109 GSW SAS 108
SAS @ SAS
109 108
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
+1
W
@ SAS SAS
125 GSW SAS 120
SAS @ SAS
125 120
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+5
L
@ OKC OKC
102 GSW OKC 126
OKC @ OKC
102 126
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
-24
W
vs IND IND
83 IND GSW 114
IND vs IND
114 83
Mon, Nov 10
Analysis
+31
L
@ DEN DEN
104 GSW DEN 129
DEN @ DEN
104 129
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
-25
L
@ SAC SAC
116 GSW SAC 121
SAC @ SAC
116 121
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
-5
W
vs PHX PHX
107 PHX GSW 118
PHX vs PHX
118 107
Wed, Nov 5
Analysis
+11
L
@ IND IND
109 GSW IND 114
IND @ IND
109 114
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
-5
L
@ MIL MIL
110 GSW MIL 120
MIL @ MIL
110 120
Fri, Oct 31
Analysis
-10
W
vs LAC LAC
79 LAC GSW 98
LAC vs LAC
98 79
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+19
W
vs MEM MEM
115 MEM GSW 131
MEM vs MEM
131 115
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
+16
L
@ POR POR
119 GSW POR 139
POR @ POR
119 139
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
-20
W
vs DEN DEN
131 DEN GSW 137
DEN vs DEN
137 131
Thu, Oct 23
Analysis
+6
W
@ LAL LAL
119 GSW LAL 109
LAL @ LAL
119 109
Tue, Oct 21
Analysis
+10