Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sheppard Hard 12/25 +5.9
Sengun 7/18 -3.8
Holiday Hard 4/16 -5.0
Thompson 4/12 -5.2
Smith Jr. Hard 4/11 -1.1
Capela Open 3/8 -4.4
Okogie 1/5 -2.9
Tate Hard 2/2 +3.1
Davison Open 2/2 +1.8

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 4/13 -2.0
Richard 7/12 +1.9
Podziemski 6/11 +2.9
Butler III 6/11 +1.7
Post Hard 5/11 -0.6
Green 5/8 +2.3
Moody Hard 2/8 -2.9
Hield Hard 0/4 -3.4
Santos 0/2 -2.2
Spencer Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
GSW
39/99 Field Goals 35/82
39.4% Field Goal % 42.7%
11/39 3-Pointers 12/43
28.2% 3-Point % 27.9%
15/24 Free Throws 18/21
62.5% Free Throw % 85.7%
47.5% True Shooting % 54.8%
66 Total Rebounds 54
25 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 34
24 Assists 25
2.40 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
10 Turnovers 16
7 Steals 8
3 Blocks 5
20 Fouls 26
42 Points in Paint 42
13 Fast Break Pts 6
22 Points off TOs 15
17 Second Chance Pts 17
29 Bench Points 26
8 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Reed Sheppard
31 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 37.3 MIN
+25.67
2
Jimmy Butler III
21 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 32.6 MIN
+24.21
3
Will Richard
18 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 28.0 MIN
+19.92
4
Clint Capela
6 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 18.1 MIN
+16.84
5
Quinten Post
12 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 21.6 MIN
+15.32
6
Jabari Smith Jr.
15 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 36.6 MIN
+12.92
7
Alperen Sengun
16 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 34.6 MIN
+10.77
8
Draymond Green
12 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 34.3 MIN
+8.79
9
Amen Thompson
10 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 38.3 MIN
+8.41
10
Brandin Podziemski
14 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+7.3
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–100
Q4 0:00 MISS M. Moody 30' 3PT 104–100
Q4 0:05 R. Sheppard Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 104–100
Q4 0:05 R. Sheppard Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 103–100
Q4 0:05 M. Moody personal FOUL (4 PF) (Sheppard 2 FT) 102–100
Q4 0:06 M. Moody 27' 3PT (9 PTS) (D. Green 8 AST) 102–100
Q4 0:13 D. Green REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 102–97
Q4 0:14 MISS A. Sengun Free Throw 2 of 2 102–97
Q4 0:14 TEAM offensive REBOUND 102–97
Q4 0:14 MISS A. Sengun Free Throw 1 of 2 102–97
Q4 0:14 J. Butler III personal FOUL (3 PF) (Sengun 2 FT) 102–97
Q4 0:16 W. Richard driving Layup (18 PTS) (B. Podziemski 2 AST) 102–97
Q4 0:30 J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 102–95
Q4 0:30 J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 101–95
Q4 0:30 D. Green personal FOUL (3 PF) (Smith Jr. 2 FT) 100–95

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Reed Sheppard actually won the night
31 points, 9 boards, 5 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+20.8), hustle (+11.4), and shot-making (+7.8), pushing Net Impact to +28.3.
Scoring +20.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +11.4
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +7.8
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Stephen Curry too hard
14 points, 6 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-18.0) and defense (-0.9), pulling Net Impact down to -9.9.
Turnovers -18.0
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -0.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +2.0
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Quinten Post's value was hiding in plain sight
12 points, 5 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+6.8), defense (+5.4), and hustle (+5.4) pushed his Net Impact to +9.4.
Scoring +6.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +5.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +5.4
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Draymond Green too hard
12 points, 9 boards, 8 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-1.2), pulling Net Impact down to -1.5.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.7
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 34.3m
12
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

Serving as the ultimate connective tissue, his elite defensive communication and rebounding fueled the transition attack. Even with a modest scoring output, his ability to orchestrate the offense from the high post kept the team in rhythm. Hustle plays and timely deflections were the true drivers of his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Stephen Curry 32.8m
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.9

Uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc and forced passes into traffic resulted in a disastrous overall rating. The offense bogged down during his minutes as opponents aggressively trapped him and forced the ball out of his hands. Missing open looks he normally buries allowed the opposition to build significant momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -18.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 7
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.2

Surgical precision in the mid-range and elite foul-drawing manipulation dictated the entire tempo of the game. He anchored the offense by consistently making the right read against double-teams, resulting in a stellar box-score impact. His physical drives to the basket repeatedly compromised the opposing interior defense.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moses Moody 30.1m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

A sharp regression from his previous offensive explosion, primarily caused by rushing perimeter jumpers against tight closeouts. While he crashed the glass effectively, the lack of scoring punch stalled the secondary unit's momentum. Inability to find a rhythm from deep ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Will Richard 28.0m
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.8

Exploded for a massive scoring surge driven by excellent off-ball movement and decisive cuts to the rim. His two-way impact soared thanks to disruptive perimeter defense that generated live-ball turnovers. Stepping into open looks with confidence completely changed the geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Despite efficient scoring, defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to navigate screens, allowing open perimeter looks that negated his offensive contributions. A noticeable drop in his usual playmaking aggression limited the team's ceiling during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Quinten Post 21.6m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

Anchored the reserve unit with phenomenal rim protection and disciplined verticality in the paint. His willingness to stretch the floor, even with mixed shooting results, pulled opposing bigs away from the basket. Defensive metrics skyrocketed as he consistently deterred drives and secured contested rebounds.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 15.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Continued a brutal shooting slump by misfiring on every perimeter attempt, severely damaging the team's half-court spacing. Without his usual gravity, defenders freely sagged into the paint to choke off driving lanes. The complete lack of offensive production rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a short stint, offering virtually no offensive creation. A forced shot and lack of defensive resistance led to a quick negative swing. He simply couldn't replicate the productive minutes he had provided in recent outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -65.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 5.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.9

A disastrous brief appearance defined by forced offensive actions and immediate defensive breakdowns. Rushing shots out of the flow of the offense led to empty trips and easy transition points for the opponent. His inability to stay disciplined on either end cratered his impact score almost instantly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -91.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.1

Failed to leave any imprint on the game during a very brief appearance. A complete lack of offensive involvement and a missed opportunity at the rim resulted in a negative rating. The defensive energy he usually provides simply didn't materialize in this short window.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 38.3m
10
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Inefficient finishing around the rim and a complete lack of perimeter gravity dragged his overall value into the red. Despite generating extra possessions through elite hustle metrics, his inability to capitalize on those chances stalled the offense. Opponents sagging off him completely disrupted the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +16.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 37.3m
31
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+28.3

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by lethal perimeter shot-making and decisive reads out of the pick-and-roll. His massive scoring surge forced defensive adjustments that opened up passing lanes for his teammates. Elite point-of-attack defense perfectly complemented his breakout scoring night.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +20.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +11.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts kept his overall impact slightly negative. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, the offensive stagnation during his minutes outweighed the stops. A lack of rim pressure ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 34.6m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.1

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed results due to an uncharacteristically poor finishing rate in the paint. He salvaged a positive rating by operating as the central playmaking hub and dominating the defensive glass. His ability to create looks for others masked the damage of his own missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 23.6m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

Tremendous energy and loose-ball recoveries were entirely undone by offensive black-hole tendencies. Forcing up low-quality looks early in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His hustle metrics popped, but the lack of scoring touch made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

Shot selection was the glaring culprit behind a deeply negative rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely erased his commendable hustle and on-ball pressure. Operating as a volume shooter rather than a connector derailed the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 18.1m
6
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Utterly dominated the interior during a highly condensed, hyper-efficient stint. Controlling the defensive glass and altering shots at the rim generated a massive per-minute impact advantage. His vertical gravity on rolls to the basket bent the defense even when he didn't touch the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +15.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Perfect execution on his limited offensive touches couldn't mask defensive vulnerabilities during his short time on the floor. Blown assignments and late rotations allowed easy opponent scores, dragging his total impact into the negative. He struggled to stay in front of quicker matchups on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 10.2m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Capitalized perfectly on a brief rotational opportunity by taking only high-percentage looks. Kept the ball moving without forcing the issue, resulting in a clean, mistake-free stint. His steady hand provided a stabilizing presence when the primary ball-handlers rested.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0