Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sengun 10/22 -3.4
Durant 8/18 +0.3
Thompson 4/12 -2.6
Sheppard Hard 6/10 +6.1
Okogie Open 4/7 +1.1
Eason Hard 4/6 +4.2
Smith Jr. 2/6 -2.5
Adams Open 1/4 -3.4

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 8/16 -1.1
Champagnie Hard 6/14 +2.6
Vassell Hard 4/12 -1.1
Castle 5/12 -3.9
Barnes Hard 8/11 +10.2
Johnson Open 3/8 -4.6
McLaughlin 4/6 +2.0
Sochan 0/5 -6.1
Waters III Hard 1/2 +1.0
Olynyk Open 1/1 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
SAS
39/85 Field Goals 40/87
45.9% Field Goal % 46.0%
13/27 3-Pointers 18/45
48.1% 3-Point % 40.0%
19/21 Free Throws 23/25
90.5% Free Throw % 92.0%
58.4% True Shooting % 61.7%
49 Total Rebounds 49
17 Offensive 15
24 Defensive 25
25 Assists 30
1.04 Assist/TO Ratio 1.43
23 Turnovers 20
12 Steals 15
4 Blocks 4
24 Fouls 19
44 Points in Paint 38
11 Fast Break Pts 11
29 Points off TOs 33
21 Second Chance Pts 33
30 Bench Points 24
11 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Julian Champagnie
22 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+24.86
2
Harrison Barnes
24 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 38.8 MIN
+20.59
3
Alperen Sengun
25 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 36.0 MIN
+17.33
4
Devin Vassell
15 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 33.1 MIN
+17.27
5
Josh Okogie
12 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 24.8 MIN
+14.29
6
Reed Sheppard
16 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 26.4 MIN
+13.69
7
Victor Wembanyama
22 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 37.2 MIN
+13.46
8
Jordan McLaughlin
9 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 9.3 MIN
+11.5
9
Stephon Castle
14 PTS · 6 REB · 13 AST · 36.4 MIN
+10.88
10
Keldon Johnson
8 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 27.1 MIN
+9.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Okogie STEAL (5 STL) 110–121
Q4 0:00 H. Barnes bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 110–121
Q4 0:05 T. Eason double dribble TURNOVER (4 TO) 110–121
Q4 0:11 H. Barnes driving Layup (24 PTS) 110–121
Q4 0:13 H. Barnes STEAL (2 STL) 110–119
Q4 0:13 A. Sengun bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 110–119
Q4 0:18 H. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 110–119
Q4 0:18 H. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 110–118
Q4 0:18 K. Durant take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 110–117
Q4 0:20 A. Sengun putback Layup (25 PTS) 110–117
Q4 0:22 A. Sengun REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 108–117
Q4 0:23 J. Champagnie BLOCK (1 BLK) 108–117
Q4 0:23 MISS J. Okogie DUNK - blocked 108–117
Q4 0:24 A. Thompson STEAL (1 STL) 108–117
Q4 0:24 S. Castle lost ball TURNOVER (5 TO) 108–117

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

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 38.8m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.7

Surgical shot selection and elite hustle metrics (+10.4) fueled a dominant veteran performance. He consistently punished defensive rotations by relocating to the corners and burying high-value perimeter looks. Active hands in the passing lanes and timely weak-side rotations cemented his overwhelming positive influence.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Eight missed field goals and likely a string of live-ball turnovers dragged his overall impact into negative territory despite strong rim deterrence (+5.3). Opponents effectively crowded his airspace in the mid-post, forcing rushed decisions and disrupting the offensive flow. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions outweighed his undeniable defensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Stephon Castle 36.4m
14
pts
6
reb
13
ast
Impact
-4.4

A complete inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, resulting in a negative net impact. While his point-of-attack defense (+7.2) was superb, his offensive limitations derailed the team's spacing and led to stagnant possessions. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, completely neutralizing his playmaking rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Devin Vassell 33.0m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.1

Exceptional defensive connectivity (+8.0) salvaged a night where poor shooting efficiency threatened to sink his value. Eight missed field goals stalled out several half-court sets, but he compensated by blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions on the other end. His ability to stay attached to shooters off screens prevented his cold streak from hurting the team.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Elite two-way execution drove a massive +13.9 impact, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense (+13.1) that completely erased his primary matchup. His willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense to its breaking point, creating driving lanes for teammates. Relentless closeouts and off-ball defensive awareness defined a spectacular performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

Five missed field goals and a lack of perimeter gravity created a slight drag on the team's overall efficiency. He struggled to finish through contact on straight-line drives, leading to empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Moderate defensive contributions (+3.8) weren't quite enough to offset the offensive friction he caused.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-19.3

A disastrous offensive stint defined by five missed shots and zero floor spacing absolutely cratered his impact score (-9.5). Defenders completely abandoned him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes and short-circuited the entire offensive scheme. Despite decent hustle (+3.8), his inability to convert quality looks made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Instant offensive injection off the bench drove a stellar +7.5 impact in under ten minutes of action. He ruthlessly exploited backup defenders with decisive drives and highly efficient shot selection. His ability to instantly push the pace tilted the momentum heavily in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

A brief rotational stint yielded a slightly negative impact due to defensive passivity and a failure to secure loose balls. While he knocked down a perimeter look, he was late on a couple of crucial weak-side rotations that compromised the defensive shell. He functioned strictly as a spacer without altering the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Quick decision-making from the high post provided a minor positive bump during his limited time on the floor. He executed the offensive system flawlessly, keeping the ball moving and capitalizing on his lone scoring opportunity. A lack of defensive resistance (+0.0) prevented him from making a larger dent in the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -71.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 38.5m
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Eight missed field goals inside the arc severely hampered offensive flow and dragged his net impact into the red. Despite generating solid hustle numbers (+5.5) through relentless rim pressure, his inability to finish through contact resulted in empty trips. Opponents successfully sagged into the paint, daring him to shoot and neutralizing his playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 36.5m
24
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

A severe negative impact score (-16.0) was driven by inefficient isolation possessions and likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers that fed transition opportunities. Ten missed field goals stalled offensive momentum during crucial stretches. His scoring volume entirely masked the defensive concessions and poor shot selection that cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -20.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S Alperen Sengun 36.0m
25
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.1

Serving as the primary offensive hub yielded a strong positive impact, though 12 missed field goals—including five errant threes—prevented an elite overall grade. His ability to manipulate the defense from the high post generated high-quality looks for cutters all night. Strong positional defense (+5.2) and active hands in the passing lanes further buoyed his value.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +7.2
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Offensive invisibility and poor spacing gravity dragged down his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics (+3.0). He struggled to establish favorable matchups on the perimeter, leading to empty possessions when the offense swung his way. The lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to aggressively help off him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 24.8m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite point-of-attack defense (+8.3) and relentless energy plays (+8.4) drove a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm by fighting over screens and generating deflections. Efficient shot selection capitalized on defensive breakdowns without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.5

Sizzling perimeter efficiency inflated his box score metrics, but a lack of defensive resistance (+0.8) kept his actual net impact marginal. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, neutralizing the value of his spot-up shooting. He thrived as a floor spacer but struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 24.9m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-level defensive metrics (+6.6) were completely offset by hidden negative plays, likely ill-timed fouls or rotational mistakes that gave up easy points. While his perimeter shot selection was nearly flawless, defensive over-aggressiveness compromised the team's shell. He operated effectively as a spacer but gave back value through undisciplined closeouts.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Steven Adams 20.1m
3
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Heavy screen-setting and solid interior deterrence (+4.6) kept his impact near neutral despite minimal offensive involvement. Three missed interior looks and a lack of secondary playmaking slightly depressed his overall score. He effectively neutralized the opposing bigs in the half-court but struggled to impact the game in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Immediate rim protection (+3.0) and vertical spacing stabilized the second unit during a brief six-minute stint. He deterred multiple drives simply through his positioning in drop coverage, forcing low-percentage floaters. The team capitalized on the defensive stops he anchored to generate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A fleeting three-second cameo provided virtually zero data for meaningful evaluation. His slight positive bump was entirely a byproduct of being on the floor for a single successful possession. He executed his situational assignment without incident.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -0.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0