Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Sabonis Open 14/24 +0.4
LaVine 8/17 +1.2
Schröder 5/13 -1.7
Westbrook 5/11 -1.1
DeRozan Hard 3/10 -3.2
Ellis Hard 3/8 +0.6
Achiuwa Open 2/4 -1.3
Monk 0/4 -4.0
Eubanks Hard 1/1 +1.1
Clifford Hard 0/1 -1.1

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 9/20 -2.8
Randle 9/16 +2.5
Reid 5/12 -1.3
DiVincenzo Hard 6/11 +6.0
McDaniels 6/9 +1.7
Gobert Open 4/6 +0.3
Conley Hard 2/5 +0.9
Clark Open 1/5 -4.4
Dillingham Hard 0/1 -0.9
Miller Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
MIN
41/93 Field Goals 42/86
44.1% Field Goal % 48.8%
12/33 3-Pointers 12/37
36.4% 3-Point % 32.4%
16/27 Free Throws 28/40
59.3% Free Throw % 70.0%
52.4% True Shooting % 59.8%
56 Total Rebounds 65
13 Offensive 13
31 Defensive 38
32 Assists 28
2.13 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
15 Turnovers 17
12 Steals 10
4 Blocks 3
26 Fouls 20
52 Points in Paint 54
21 Fast Break Pts 8
25 Points off TOs 24
16 Second Chance Pts 21
28 Bench Points 24
7 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Domantas Sabonis
34 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 39.4 MIN
+24.98
2
Julius Randle
26 PTS · 11 REB · 5 AST · 32.3 MIN
+22.92
3
Anthony Edwards
30 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 35.8 MIN
+20.29
4
Donte DiVincenzo
20 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 30.4 MIN
+17.54
5
Zach LaVine
25 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 36.3 MIN
+13.28
6
Keon Ellis
9 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 22.4 MIN
+11.88
7
Naz Reid
12 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 25.0 MIN
+11.44
8
Precious Achiuwa
4 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 19.6 MIN
+8.76
9
Rudy Gobert
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 34.3 MIN
+8.26
10
Dennis Schröder
14 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 28.4 MIN
+8.02
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 R. Westbrook REBOUND (Off:5 Def:5) 110–124
Q4 0:00 MISS L. Miller 24' step back 3PT 110–124
Q4 0:12 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 110–124
Q4 0:15 MISS D. Schröder 25' 3PT 110–124
Q4 0:21 L. Miller Free Throw 2 of 2 (1 PTS) 110–124
Q4 0:21 TEAM offensive REBOUND 110–123
Q4 0:21 MISS L. Miller Free Throw 1 of 2 110–123
Q4 0:21 R. Westbrook take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Miller 2 FT) 110–123
Q4 0:25 D. Sabonis 3PT (34 PTS) (Z. LaVine 3 AST) 110–123
Q4 0:35 D. DiVincenzo Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 107–123
Q4 0:35 D. DiVincenzo Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 107–122
Q4 0:35 R. Westbrook personal FOUL (2 PF) (DiVincenzo 2 FT) 107–121
Q4 0:36 D. DiVincenzo REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 107–121
Q4 0:40 MISS Z. LaVine 28' pullup 3PT 107–121
Q4 0:45 TEAM defensive REBOUND 107–121

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 35.8m
30
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.2

An explosive scoring resurgence drove his positive impact, snapping a recent slump with relentless rim pressure. He dictated the terms of engagement offensively, forcing the defense into constant rotation. Solid defensive engagement further validated his star-level performance, ensuring his high usage translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 34.3m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Elite rim protection (+8.2 Def) defined his night, completely walling off the paint against driving guards. However, his overall impact was muted by offensive limitations and a lack of fluidity in pick-and-roll sets. He essentially played to a draw, trading dominant defensive possessions for clunky offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Julius Randle 32.3m
26
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.2

Bullied his way to a massive positive impact through sheer physical dominance and highly efficient shot creation. His ability to consistently break down the defense in isolation fueled a dominant offensive rating. He compounded this by anchoring the defensive glass and providing surprisingly stout interior resistance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +13.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 31.1m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

A dip in offensive production combined with surprisingly muted defensive impact dragged his overall rating down. While he generated strong hustle metrics, his inability to match his recent scoring output left the offense searching for answers. He struggled to contain his primary assignment on the perimeter, negating the value of his energy plays.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.7

Lethal perimeter spacing broke the game open, as he punished defensive lapses with timely shot-making. His relentless off-ball movement constantly stressed the opponent's shell, creating driving lanes for teammates. He paired this offensive surge with active hands in the passing lanes, generating crucial hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +15.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 25.0m
12
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Exceptional defensive versatility (+8.2 Def) drove his positive rating, anchoring the second unit's frontcourt. He overcame ongoing shooting struggles by dominating the glass and altering shots around the rim. His willingness to embrace the dirty work ensured he remained highly effective despite a cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +15.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
Jaylen Clark 21.7m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

High-energy defensive play couldn't offset the offensive spacing issues he created. His inability to convert open looks bogged down the half-court offense, allowing defenders to pack the paint. While his hustle metrics were commendable, the lack of scoring gravity ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 17.8m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Steady but unspectacular floor generalship resulted in a nearly neutral impact score. While he showed slight improvement over his recent shooting woes, his inability to consistently threaten the defense allowed opponents to sag off. He managed the game well enough, but lacked the dynamic punch needed to truly move the needle.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.9

A complete failure to generate offense doomed his brief stint on the floor. He provided some surprising defensive resistance, but his inability to score or collapse the defense stalled the second unit. The stark drop-off from his usual production left the bench devoid of a primary creator.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting end-of-game appearance. He had no opportunity to impact the game in either direction during his brief seconds on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Logged less than a minute of action, resulting in a negligible impact score. His recent hyper-efficient scoring was kept firmly on the bench during this contest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -0.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

A disastrously short stint saw him miss his only look, quickly earning a seat back on the bench. The massive drop from his recent double-digit scoring average highlighted a complete lack of rhythm. He failed to establish any physical presence during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 100.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Made a microscopic cameo that yielded zero statistical production. His usual microwave scoring was entirely absent from the rotation tonight.

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 0.3m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.3
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
34
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.9

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive box score impact, punishing mismatches on the interior all night. His physical screening and relentless finishing completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. While his defensive metrics were merely average, the sheer volume of high-quality offensive possessions dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +24.1
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +14.0
Defense -4.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 36.3m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Strong perimeter shot-making wasn't enough to overcome the hidden negatives that dragged his overall rating into the red. Defensive lapses in transition and untimely rotations negated the value of his offensive spacing. His scoring punch looked great on paper but failed to translate into winning basketball during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 34.1m
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.1

A massive drop in offensive aggression torpedoed his overall impact, as he managed just a fraction of his usual scoring volume. Despite generating solid defensive and hustle metrics, his inability to find a rhythm on isolation sets left the half-court offense stagnant. The stark contrast from his recent 20-point average highlighted a passive approach that dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
10
reb
14
ast
Impact
-2.8

High-usage playmaking came at a steep cost, as erratic decision-making and defensive breakdowns tanked his overall impact. While he generated plenty of transition opportunities, the negative defensive rating suggests he was frequently exploited on the other end. The sheer volume of his creation couldn't mask the structural damage done by his off-ball defensive gambles.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite defensive positioning (+7.9) anchored his positive impact despite a severe drop-off in scoring production. He traded his recent offensive efficiency for high-level rim protection and switchability on the perimeter. This shift in focus allowed him to remain a net positive even when his offensive touches evaporated.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite a massive surge in scoring aggression compared to recent outings, his overall impact remained negative due to defensive mismatches. He successfully hunted his own shot, but the opponent consistently targeted his lack of size in pick-and-roll actions. The offensive bounce-back was ultimately overshadowed by the structural compromises he forced on defense.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 22.4m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Smothering point-of-attack defense drove a highly effective shift, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm. He paired his elite defensive metrics (+7.8) with timely perimeter shot-making to provide perfect two-way role-player value. His ability to navigate screens and contest without fouling was the defining feature of his night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Malik Monk 15.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

A complete offensive disappearing act resulted in a disastrous net rating during his minutes. Failing to convert a single field goal after averaging 16 points recently, his empty possessions repeatedly stalled the second unit's momentum. He provided minor defensive resistance, but the total lack of scoring gravity made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.9

A brief, ineffective stint saw him completely vanish from the offensive game plan after a string of solid scoring performances. He managed some minor hustle plays, but the total lack of offensive involvement rendered his minutes a net negative. His inability to impact the game offensively essentially forced the team to play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Perfect execution in limited minutes provided a quick spark to the frontcourt rotation. He maximized his brief run by finishing his only look and securing the glass, offering solid rim deterrence in the process. It was a textbook example of a backup big doing exactly what was required without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0