Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell 12/25 +0.7
Mobley Hard 8/18 +1.8
Merrill Hard 6/11 +5.0
Nance Jr. 4/7 +1.6
Ball Hard 1/7 -3.8
Proctor Hard 2/5 0.0
Tyson Hard 2/4 +0.5
Allen Open 1/4 -2.8
Wade Hard 3/3 +5.8
Porter Jr. Hard 1/2 +0.1

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 5/18 -7.8
Anunoby 9/17 +3.0
Towns 5/12 -3.5
Bridges 6/11 +0.1
McBride Hard 4/7 +4.9
Clarkson 2/7 -3.4
Kolek 3/6 +0.2
Shamet 2/4 +1.2
Hukporti Open 1/2 -0.6
Yabusele 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
NYK
40/86 Field Goals 37/86
46.5% Field Goal % 43.0%
19/46 3-Pointers 14/40
41.3% 3-Point % 35.0%
12/18 Free Throws 31/36
66.7% Free Throw % 86.1%
59.1% True Shooting % 58.4%
50 Total Rebounds 58
4 Offensive 9
28 Defensive 39
21 Assists 22
1.40 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
15 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 8
4 Blocks 4
25 Fouls 23
30 Points in Paint 42
23 Fast Break Pts 16
18 Points off TOs 21
11 Second Chance Pts 13
30 Bench Points 35
5 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Mikal Bridges
16 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 33.2 MIN
+23.81
2
OG Anunoby
24 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 37.5 MIN
+22.41
3
Donovan Mitchell
31 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 35.9 MIN
+21.43
4
Evan Mobley
22 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.9 MIN
+14.4
5
Sam Merrill
19 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 28.4 MIN
+10.54
6
Dean Wade
10 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 28.1 MIN
+9.8
7
Miles McBride
15 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 25.9 MIN
+8.93
8
Karl-Anthony Towns
19 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 31.0 MIN
+8.66
9
Jalen Brunson
23 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 34.4 MIN
+8.64
10
Landry Shamet
9 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 13.8 MIN
+8.04
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 O. Anunoby REBOUND (Off:2 Def:12) 111–119
Q4 0:03 MISS D. Mitchell 25' step back 3PT 111–119
Q4 0:11 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 111–119
Q4 0:11 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–118
Q4 0:11 MISS O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 111–118
Q4 0:11 S. Merrill take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 111–118
Q4 0:15 O. Anunoby REBOUND (Off:2 Def:11) 111–118
Q4 0:17 MISS E. Mobley 25' step back 3PT 111–118
Q4 0:23 E. Mobley STEAL (3 STL) 111–118
Q4 0:23 J. Brunson lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 111–118
Q4 0:28 S. Merrill 27' 3PT pullup (19 PTS) 111–118
Q4 0:34 O. Anunoby running reverse DUNK (23 PTS) (J. Brunson 5 AST) 108–118
Q4 0:37 O. Anunoby STEAL (3 STL) 108–116
Q4 0:37 L. Ball bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 108–116
Q4 0:39 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 108–116

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 37.5m
24
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.4

Suffocating perimeter defense (+14.8 Def) completely derailed the opponent's primary scoring options and defined his dominant two-way performance. He compounded this defensive masterclass by punishing closeouts and draining spot-up threes, driving a massive offensive rating (+11.0 Box). His relentless physicality on both ends of the floor cemented a massive double-digit net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +10.0
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 34.4m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall efficiency and allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. While his sheer usage and playmaking generated some baseline offensive value (+10.7 Box), the sheer volume of empty possessions ultimately dragged the team into the negative (-3.6 Total). He failed to offset these offensive struggles with meaningful defensive resistance (+0.7 Def).

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 33.2m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+19.5

Masterful two-way execution fueled a massive overall impact (+13.9 Total), highlighted by his ability to seamlessly navigate screens and blow up dribble hand-offs (+8.3 Def). Offensively, his decisive secondary playmaking and efficient shot selection kept the opposing defense constantly in rotation (+16.2 Box). A high volume of deflections and contested shots (+6.0 Hustle) proved he was the ultimate connective tissue.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.8

Offensive versatility generated significant value (+9.5 Box), but defensive miscommunications in the pick-and-roll ultimately washed out his overall impact. While he battled admirably for positioning (+3.7 Hustle), opponents successfully targeted his drop coverage during critical stretches. The resulting easy floaters and lob finishes dragged his total net rating slightly below neutral (-0.2 Total).

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +13.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ariel Hukporti 17.8m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to anchor the second-unit defense, allowing too much dribble penetration that compromised the team's rotational integrity. Despite decent rim-deterrence metrics (+1.7 Def), his inability to generate any offensive gravity clogged the paint for the guards. This offensive stagnation ultimately resulted in a noticeable negative swing (-3.7 Total) during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elite point-of-attack pressure and timely perimeter shot-making defined a highly productive shift as a two-way spark plug. He punished defensive lapses with a barrage of spot-up threes, driving a stellar offensive metric (+9.6 Box). His relentless ball pressure (+4.3 Hustle) disrupted the opponent's timing, ensuring his minutes were a clear net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on every offensive touch with pristine shot selection, stretching the defense and opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. Surprisingly stout positional defense (+4.6 Def) was the real story, as he consistently beat slashers to their spots and funneled them into help. This combination of floor spacing and disciplined closeouts (+3.5 Hustle) fueled a massive positive swing (+7.2 Total) during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 13.6m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Orchestrated the second unit with decent pace (+5.5 Box) but struggled to navigate physical perimeter defense, resulting in a few stalled possessions. He competed adequately on the defensive end (+0.6 Def) but lacked the physical tools to consistently disrupt opposing actions. Ultimately, his minutes resulted in a statistical wash (-0.1 Total) as his playmaking was offset by minor defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

Forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, derailing the offense's rhythm and sparking opponent transition opportunities. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards (-0.6 Def) compounded his scoring struggles, making him a clear liability on both ends. This erratic shot selection and defensive apathy resulted in a sharp negative impact (-5.3 Total) during his brief tenure on the court.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his stint on the floor, as he failed to bend the defense or capitalize on open looks. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which ruined the team's spacing and led to a steep negative net rating (-5.8 Total). Marginal contributions in hustle (+0.4) and defense (+0.2) did nothing to salvage a highly ineffective rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Operated strictly as a brief interior placeholder, offering decent verticality (+1.2 Def) but zero offensive threat. His complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the opposing frontcourt to roam freely, slightly depressing the team's overall efficiency (-1.1 Total). He avoided major mistakes but failed to generate any momentum-shifting plays.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.9m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.2

Elite defensive metrics (+11.8 Def) anchored his overall positive impact, as he consistently deterred shots at the rim and disrupted passing lanes. His willingness to stretch the floor from deep forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Strong hustle plays (+5.0) further cemented a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
31
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.1

Relentless downhill attacking generated massive offensive value (+17.1 Box), completely collapsing the opposing defense despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He supplemented his scoring gravity with surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense (+5.9 Def), fighting through screens to blow up perimeter actions. This aggressive two-way motor resulted in a dominant overall impact (+9.4 Total).

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +21.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Sam Merrill 28.4m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Lethal perimeter spacing drove a massive offensive rating boost (+15.0 Box), punishing drop coverages with quick-trigger triples. While his defensive limitations (-3.0 Def) were frequently targeted by isolation scorers, his constant off-ball movement exhausted defenders. High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries (+7.5 Hustle) ensured his shooting gravity translated to a strong net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 28.2m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Offensive invisibility dragged his net impact into the red, as he failed to establish deep post position or finish around the basket. However, his relentless activity on the glass and elite rim protection (+6.5 Def) kept the second unit afloat. His high-motor screen-setting and deflections (+7.3 Hustle) heavily masked his scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 20.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, leading to a severely depressed overall impact (-6.5) despite decent shot selection. A lack of defensive resistance (-0.3 Def) allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. He managed a few timely hustle plays, but it wasn't enough to stop the bleeding during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dean Wade 28.1m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Flawless shot selection and timely weak-side rotations characterized a highly efficient stint as a connecting piece. He maximized his touches by only taking high-value corner threes, driving a strong offensive metric (+9.6 Box). Solid positional defense (+2.7 Def) kept his minutes stable, though his lack of rebounding volume capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 128.9%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 23.5m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-16.9

An inability to connect from the perimeter completely cratered his offensive value (-5.5 Box), allowing defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. This lack of scoring gravity stalled the half-court offense, resulting in a disastrous overall net rating (-14.5 Total). He provided marginal value as a perimeter deterrent (+1.8 Def), but the missed shots were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-IQ spatial awareness fueled a highly productive shift, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to score efficiently around the basket and from deep. His vertical spacing and reliable hands generated a strong offensive metric (+7.5 Box) in limited minutes. Active hands in the passing lanes and solid screen-setting (+2.8 Hustle) solidified his role as a premium frontcourt stabilizer.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Showed flashes of playmaking upside (+3.7 Box) but was ultimately dragged into the negative by disjointed lineup configurations during his shifts. Opposing guards easily navigated his screens, leading to a slight defensive bleed (-0.1 Def) that compounded over time. While he competed hard for loose balls (+1.9 Hustle), his overall command of the offense remained too raw to drive winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Brief rotational minutes yielded negligible overall impact (-0.6 Total) as he struggled to imprint himself on the game's tempo. A couple of quick hustle plays (+1.3) provided a momentary spark, but minor defensive lapses (-0.2 Def) negated those gains. Ultimately, he operated mostly as a placeholder while the primary ball-handlers rested.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0