Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 160 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards Hard 9/19 +4.2
Randle Hard 2/13 -7.6
Reid 4/11 -2.2
DiVincenzo Hard 4/9 +0.3
Shannon Jr. Open 7/7 +8.2
Dillingham 2/7 -2.3
McDaniels Hard 3/6 +2.1
Conley 1/4 -2.4
Gobert Open 1/3 -1.7
Clark Hard 0/1 -1.1

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 12/19 +4.5
Holmgren 4/12 -3.0
Hartenstein Open 6/10 -0.9
Mitchell Open 5/9 -0.7
Dort Hard 2/9 -5.4
Wallace 4/7 +0.7
Caruso Hard 1/5 -2.2
Williams 2/4 +0.7
Joe 2/4 -1.0
Williams Open 0/1 -1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
OKC
33/80 Field Goals 38/80
41.2% Field Goal % 47.5%
17/37 3-Pointers 7/26
45.9% 3-Point % 26.9%
22/37 Free Throws 30/38
59.5% Free Throw % 78.9%
54.5% True Shooting % 58.4%
60 Total Rebounds 53
12 Offensive 5
32 Defensive 34
25 Assists 19
1.56 Assist/TO Ratio 2.11
14 Turnovers 7
4 Steals 8
5 Blocks 3
25 Fouls 25
28 Points in Paint 50
8 Fast Break Pts 16
11 Points off TOs 20
12 Second Chance Pts 5
38 Bench Points 32
5 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
40 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 36.7 MIN
+39.92
2
Isaiah Hartenstein
15 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 28.0 MIN
+16.34
3
Terrence Shannon Jr.
18 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.1 MIN
+15.85
4
Anthony Edwards
31 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 40.1 MIN
+15.72
5
Chet Holmgren
12 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 29.0 MIN
+9.21
6
Cason Wallace
9 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 31.7 MIN
+8.14
7
Ajay Mitchell
13 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 23.6 MIN
+8.12
8
Jaylin Williams
9 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 12.4 MIN
+6.39
9
Donte DiVincenzo
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 31.3 MIN
+6.08
10
Naz Reid
12 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 24.1 MIN
+6.01
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 C. Holmgren REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 105–113
Q4 0:03 MISS D. DiVincenzo 26' 3PT 105–113
Q4 0:04 J. McDaniels REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 105–113
Q4 0:07 MISS N. Reid 26' pullup 3PT 105–113
Q4 0:13 L. Dort cutting DUNK (5 PTS) (C. Holmgren 2 AST) 105–113
Q4 0:17 A. Edwards Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 105–111
Q4 0:17 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–111
Q4 0:17 MISS A. Edwards Free Throw 1 of 2 104–111
Q4 0:17 C. Wallace shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Edwards 2 FT) 104–111
Q4 0:24 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (40 PTS) 104–111
Q4 0:24 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 (39 PTS) 104–110
Q4 0:24 A. Edwards personal FOUL (4 PF) (Gilgeous-Alexander 2 FT) 104–109
Q4 0:26 MIN 5-second-violation Team TURNOVER 104–109
Q4 0:26 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (38 PTS) 104–109
Q4 0:26 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–108

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
40
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+42.2

An absolute tour de force defined by surgical mid-range execution and an uncanny ability to break down primary defenders. He not only carried the offensive load with staggering efficiency (+33.7 box) but also disrupted passing lanes to generate elite defensive metrics (+6.8). His methodical dismantling of the defensive scheme dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 15/17 (88.2%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +33.4
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 31.7m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Offensive futility cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly clanked open perimeter looks and wasted valuable possessions. He fought hard on the other end (+2.5 def) and generated solid hustle metrics, but the sheer volume of missed spot-up opportunities derailed the offense. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, severely cramping the spacing for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 31.6m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided steady point-of-attack defense (+2.3 def) and high-level hustle, but his reluctance to hunt his own shot limited his offensive upside. Missing the majority of his attempts from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes. While he didn't make glaring mistakes, the lack of perimeter gravity resulted in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 29.0m
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Struggled to finish through contact in the paint, resulting in a highly inefficient shooting night that suppressed his offensive ceiling. However, he anchored the defense masterfully (+5.0 def), altering numerous shots at the rim and securing key defensive rebounds. The elite rim protection ultimately kept his net impact slightly above water despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Dominated the interior on both ends, pairing highly efficient finishing with exceptional defensive positioning (+7.3 def). His relentless activity on the glass generated massive hustle value (+4.1) and consistently rewarded the team with extra possessions. This performance was defined by his ability to out-muscle the opposing frontcourt and control the paint outright.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Capitalized on transition opportunities and finished well through traffic to provide a reliable scoring punch off the bench. His active hands generated solid hustle metrics (+3.1), keeping possessions alive and frustrating opposing guards. A disciplined approach to shot selection ensured he remained a net positive despite minimal three-point volume.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 21.9m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Offensive disjointedness severely penalized his rating, as he failed to connect on spot-up jumpers and struggled to initiate the offense. While he brought his trademark energy (+2.4 hustle), his defensive impact was surprisingly neutral, failing to generate the usual deflections. The inability to punish defensive rotations from the perimeter made him a liability on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

Faded completely into the background offensively, failing to score and attempting just a single shot during his time on the floor. His hustle and defensive metrics were barely perceptible, indicating a lack of physical imposition on the game. Without any tangible contributions to spacing or disruption, his minutes were a clear negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Made the most of a short stint by executing flawlessly in the pick-and-pop and maintaining solid defensive positioning (+2.5 def). His willingness to step in and contest the paint added hidden value that boosted his overall impact. Efficient scoring combined with mistake-free defense made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 12.2m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Failed to provide his signature floor spacing, missing his three-point attempts and allowing the defense to contract. He was frequently targeted on the other end, resulting in a negative defensive rating (-0.9 def) that compounded his offensive struggles. The lack of perimeter gravity neutralized his primary utility as a bench scorer.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 40.1m
31
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.6

Bounced back emphatically from a two-game slump by hunting his perimeter shot with supreme confidence and converting at a high clip. His massive offensive creation (+16.9 box) was the engine of the scheme, though his defensive impact remained relatively muted. The sheer volume and efficiency of his isolation scoring masked any minor lapses in transition coverage.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +22.0
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julius Randle 33.0m
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

A brutal shooting regression dragged his impact into the red, snapping a hot streak with a barrage of contested, low-quality misses. Despite the offensive struggles, he salvaged his value through elite defensive positioning and high-motor rebounding that generated significant hustle points (+5.8). The stark contrast between his forced jumpers and relentless interior defense defined a heavily polarized performance.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 32.2m
5
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

Marginalized offensively with minimal touches, his inability to command the paint in the pick-and-roll limited his overall effectiveness. He still anchored the interior with robust defensive metrics (+5.9), deterring drives and protecting the rim at a high level. However, the complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the opposition to cheat off him and crowd the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +15.2
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Subpar perimeter execution hampered his overall rating, as he failed to connect consistently on spot-up opportunities from deep. He managed to contribute positively on the defensive end (+2.9 def) by navigating screens and contesting late clock actions. Ultimately, the lack of offensive punch from a primary floor spacer proved too costly for the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 30.1m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Offensive passivity tanked his overall value, attempting a fraction of his usual shots after a dominant three-game scoring stretch. While he remained perfectly efficient from deep, the lack of scoring volume couldn't offset defensive tracking metrics that hovered near neutral. His inability to assert himself as a primary option left a noticeable void in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Naz Reid 24.1m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Forced too many looks in traffic, leading to a subpar shooting night that dragged down his overall net impact. While he provided a moderate scoring punch off the bench, his defensive rotations were frequently a half-step slow (-0.2 def). The inability to finish efficiently around the basket negated the value of his floor-stretching triples.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Delivered an absolute masterclass in scoring efficiency, hitting every single shot he took to generate a massive positive impact (+17.8 box). His relentless downhill attacking completely overwhelmed the opposing second unit. Despite some defensive lapses (-1.6), his flawless offensive execution was the defining element of the bench unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 114.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 12.5m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Looked completely out of rhythm during a brief stint, failing to orchestrate the offense or find his own shot. Zero hustle contributions indicate a lack of physical engagement, allowing opposing guards to dictate the tempo. His inability to penetrate the defense or connect from deep rendered his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -65.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection inside the arc doomed his efficiency, as he repeatedly drove into contested areas without a clear exit plan. A defensive liability (-0.5 def) in his short rotation, he struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack. Hitting his lone three-pointer wasn't enough to salvage a disjointed offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

A complete non-factor in limited action, failing to register any meaningful statistics outside of a missed jumper. His negative defensive impact (-0.4 def) suggests he was targeted successfully during his brief time on the floor. Without any offensive gravity or disruptive defensive plays, his stint was a net negative across the board.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -79.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1