Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 16/26 +15.1
Butler III Open 7/14 -2.0
Green 3/12 -7.7
Podziemski Hard 3/8 +1.4
Moody 2/8 -5.4
Richard 4/7 +1.7
Payton II 2/7 -2.1
Horford Hard 0/4 -3.7
Post 1/3 -0.6
Hield Open 0/1 -1.4

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Fox 10/22 -0.5
Wembanyama Hard 10/21 +1.8
Vassell Hard 4/10 -1.0
Champagnie Hard 4/9 +2.0
Johnson Open 2/7 -5.0
Castle Open 4/6 +1.0
Barnes 2/5 -0.9
Sochan Open 2/3 +1.1
Kornet Open 1/2 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
SAS
38/90 Field Goals 39/85
42.2% Field Goal % 45.9%
17/45 3-Pointers 14/38
37.8% 3-Point % 36.8%
16/18 Free Throws 16/19
88.9% Free Throw % 84.2%
55.7% True Shooting % 57.8%
45 Total Rebounds 59
15 Offensive 11
24 Defensive 36
18 Assists 28
1.20 Assist/TO Ratio 1.33
14 Turnovers 20
9 Steals 8
8 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 19
32 Points in Paint 40
7 Fast Break Pts 18
25 Points off TOs 23
8 Second Chance Pts 18
19 Bench Points 27
8 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Stephen Curry
49 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 36.0 MIN
+39.89
2
Victor Wembanyama
26 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 38.2 MIN
+23.82
3
De'Aaron Fox
24 PTS · 4 REB · 10 AST · 33.2 MIN
+21.07
4
Jimmy Butler III
21 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 34.6 MIN
+20.83
5
Will Richard
10 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 15.9 MIN
+10.18
6
Julian Champagnie
14 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 22.8 MIN
+8.28
7
Stephon Castle
13 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 36.4 MIN
+7.62
8
Brandin Podziemski
10 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 29.9 MIN
+7.36
9
Devin Vassell
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 31.9 MIN
+6.38
10
Al Horford
0 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 23.5 MIN
+5.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–108
Q4 0:01 MISS D. Fox 18' step back Shot 109–108
Q4 0:06 S. Curry Free Throw 2 of 2 (49 PTS) 109–108
Q4 0:06 S. Curry Free Throw 1 of 2 (48 PTS) 108–108
Q4 0:06 D. Fox shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Curry 2 FT) 107–108
Q4 0:10 B. Podziemski REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 107–108
Q4 0:12 MISS D. Fox 17' pullup bank Shot 107–108
Q4 0:31 D. Fox REBOUND (Off:3 Def:1) 107–108
Q4 0:32 V. Wembanyama BLOCK (3 BLK) 107–108
Q4 0:32 MISS J. Butler III running finger roll Layup - blocked 107–108
Q4 0:37 S. Curry REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 107–108
Q4 0:39 MISS V. Wembanyama 18' pullup Shot 107–108
Q4 0:56 J. Butler III cutting finger roll Layup (21 PTS) (D. Green 8 AST) 107–108
Q4 1:06 V. Wembanyama tip Layup (26 PTS) 105–108
Q4 1:07 V. Wembanyama REBOUND (Off:3 Def:9) 105–106

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
26
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+25.5

Generational rim deterrence completely altered the geometry of the court, as opponents outright refused to challenge him in the paint (+14.5 Def). His massive two-way footprint was amplified by relentless activity on the offensive glass and disruptive deflections (+10.4 Hustle). A dominant stretch in the third quarter where he swatted two shots and immediately trailed for a transition three showcased his unique, game-breaking impact.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +8.4
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Stephon Castle 36.4m
13
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.1

Rookie mistakes navigating screens and a series of costly offensive fouls drastically undercut a highly efficient shooting night. He showed great flashes of physical downhill driving, yet his tendency to leave his feet before making a passing read resulted in brutal live-ball turnovers. The defensive intensity was present, but undisciplined gambles allowed straight-line drives to the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S De'Aaron Fox 33.2m
24
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.3

Relentless rim pressure and an aggressive mindset in transition forced the defense onto its heels all night. He consistently collapsed the shell with his lightning-quick first step, generating high-quality looks for himself and his shooters. A clutch sequence of isolation pull-ups in the fourth quarter ultimately sealed his highly positive impact on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Devin Vassell 31.9m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses severely hampered his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall impact. Despite showing excellent anticipation in the passing lanes (+6.3 Hustle), his sloppy handle in pick-and-roll situations resulted in momentum-killing turnovers. Opposing wings successfully bodied him off his preferred spots, forcing him into low-percentage bailout heaves late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 28.1m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Extreme passivity on the offensive end allowed his defender to freely muck up the paint, directly contributing to a stagnant half-court offense. He provided fundamentally sound weakside help (+4.1 Def), but his hesitation to attack closeouts resulted in multiple shot-clock violations for the unit. A lack of forceful drives to the rim made him a non-factor in breaking down the defense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

A pure floor-spacing performance was ultimately overshadowed by glaring defensive lapses and poor closeout discipline. While he knocked down his catch-and-shoot looks at a solid clip, his inability to stay in front of quicker wings forced the defense into constant rotation. He offered virtually zero resistance at the point of attack, bleeding points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.1

Reckless drives into heavily populated paint areas led to blocked shots and transition opportunities going the other way. His shot selection was highly suspect, frequently settling for off-balance jumpers early in the possession rather than moving the ball. The resulting offensive stagnation cratered his overall value despite adequate effort on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kornet 17.3m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage provided a stabilizing presence during his backup center minutes. He rarely forced the issue offensively, instead setting bruising screens that freed up the guards for clean downhill attacks. His ability to contest at the rim without fouling (+4.6 Def) was the quiet engine behind a positive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 13.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.4

Disjointed defensive rotations and a failure to secure defensive rebounds made his brief time on the court a massive negative. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, completely compromising the team's defensive shell (-0.7 Def). Even with efficient finishing around the basket, his lack of situational awareness on the other end proved far too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 36.0m
49
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+42.9

Absolute offensive mastery dictated the entire flow of the game, bending the opposing defense to its breaking point with constant off-ball relocation. His lethal shot selection and immediate punishment of drop coverage generated a staggering +36.7 box impact. Beyond the scoring barrage, his willingness to dig down on drives and secure long rebounds (+7.4 Hustle) showcased a complete, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 16/26 (61.5%)
3PT 9/17 (52.9%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +41.4
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +11.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.0

A heavy diet of isolation possessions yielded solid scoring efficiency but bogged down the offensive flow, causing his overall impact to lag far behind his raw production. Costly live-ball turnovers and late defensive rotations ate into his value during the second half. He consistently hunted mismatches in the mid-post, though the resulting stagnant spacing allowed the defense to easily recover and contest.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 33.1m
6
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.2

Offensive struggles severely handicapped his overall value, as a string of forced, contested jumpers from the perimeter allowed the defense to cheat off him. While his vocal leadership and back-line communication remained intact (+3.6 Def), the sheer volume of empty possessions and uncharacteristic passing errors derailed the unit's momentum. Opponents entirely ignored him above the break, completely clogging the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Moses Moody 29.6m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

A drastic regression in shot-making quality cratered his offensive impact, with multiple rushed attempts early in the shot clock leading to long rebounds and transition run-outs. He managed to salvage some value through sheer effort on the glass and disciplined closeouts (+5.2 Hustle), but the lack of scoring punch was glaring. His inability to punish closeouts from the corners allowed the defense to pack the paint all night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Will Richard 15.9m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Incredible energy off the bench fueled a massive +10.6 overall impact, driven primarily by relentless activity on 50/50 balls (+7.5 Hustle). His aggressive closeouts and timely weakside rotations completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm during a pivotal second-quarter stretch. Stepping up his offensive aggression beyond his usual role forced defenders to respect his perimeter gravity, opening up back-door cuts for teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Careless ball security in traffic and a tendency to over-penetrate into the teeth of the defense severely undercut his otherwise solid perimeter shooting. While he remained active in the passing lanes (+4.8 Hustle), a series of live-ball turnovers during the third quarter sparked a devastating opponent run. His hesitation to finish with his right hand made him entirely predictable on drives, allowing rim protectors to easily load up.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Al Horford 23.6m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Masterful positional awareness anchored the interior defense (+8.0 Def), consistently deterring drives without needing to foul. However, a complete lack of offensive aggression and multiple passed-up open looks allowed his primary defender to roam freely as a free safety. His reluctance to let it fly from the trail spot ultimately bogged down the half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Blown layups and an inability to finish through contact at the rim dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid perimeter defense. He provided his usual point-of-attack pressure (+3.1 Def), but the offensive spacing suffered when he failed to convert on baseline cuts. Opposing guards successfully dared him to put the ball on the floor, resulting in disrupted offensive sets and wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 14.2m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Complete offensive invisibility rendered his minutes highly detrimental, as he failed to leverage his typical floor-spacing gravity. Without his usual volume of movement shooting to occupy defenders, the weakside spacing collapsed entirely. A couple of costly reach-in fouls further compounded his negative impact during a brief, ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage during a brief rotation stint, frequently getting caught in no-man's land against the pick-and-roll. He did manage to stretch the floor with a timely trail three, but his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds gave the opposition crucial second-chance opportunities. The speed of the game seemed just a half-step too fast for his defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1