Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Fox Hard 6/19 -5.4
Vassell Hard 12/17 +15.2
Champagnie Hard 6/15 -1.2
Barnes Hard 4/11 -2.4
Johnson Hard 4/7 +2.3
Harper 4/7 +0.6
Kornet Open 4/7 -1.0
Sochan 2/4 -0.5
Olynyk Hard 2/3 +2.0
Bryant Hard 1/3 +0.1

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 13/20 +11.9
Johnson 10/16 +8.6
Watson 5/11 -1.9
Jokić 7/10 +5.2
Hardaway Jr. Hard 4/10 +0.8
Jones 4/9 -1.6
Brown 1/8 -7.1
Nnaji 2/4 -1.1
Valančiūnas 2/3 +0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
DEN
46/94 Field Goals 48/91
48.9% Field Goal % 52.7%
17/42 3-Pointers 16/39
40.5% 3-Point % 41.0%
30/32 Free Throws 24/30
93.8% Free Throw % 80.0%
64.3% True Shooting % 65.3%
44 Total Rebounds 56
12 Offensive 14
23 Defensive 30
30 Assists 27
3.33 Assist/TO Ratio 1.59
8 Turnovers 16
10 Steals 5
5 Blocks 5
27 Fouls 22
48 Points in Paint 44
16 Fast Break Pts 16
30 Points off TOs 14
21 Second Chance Pts 22
42 Bench Points 26
8 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Devin Vassell
35 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 31.3 MIN
+33.06
2
Jamal Murray
37 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 36.2 MIN
+29.91
3
Julian Champagnie
25 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 36.4 MIN
+26.15
4
Cameron Johnson
28 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 37.8 MIN
+24.65
5
Nikola Jokić
21 PTS · 9 REB · 10 AST · 36.0 MIN
+17.93
6
Dylan Harper
11 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 15.3 MIN
+15.96
7
Peyton Watson
15 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 33.7 MIN
+15.13
8
Keldon Johnson
14 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 22.4 MIN
+12.29
9
Luke Kornet
12 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.7 MIN
+12.19
10
De'Aaron Fox
15 PTS · 1 REB · 12 AST · 34.1 MIN
+7.01
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Murray 26' 3PT pullup (37 PTS) 139–136
Q4 0:08 K. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 139–133
Q4 0:08 K. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 138–133
Q4 0:08 N. Jokić take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 137–133
Q4 0:11 J. Murray driving Layup (34 PTS) 137–133
Q4 0:19 D. Vassell Free Throw 2 of 2 (35 PTS) 137–131
Q4 0:19 D. Vassell Free Throw 1 of 2 (34 PTS) 136–131
Q4 0:19 N. Jokić personal FOUL (4 PF) (Vassell 2 FT) 135–131
Q4 0:25 N. Jokić 25' 3PT (21 PTS) (P. Watson 3 AST) 135–131
Q4 0:28 TEAM offensive REBOUND 135–128
Q4 0:28 J. Champagnie BLOCK (2 BLK) 135–128
Q4 0:28 MISS N. Jokić 22' Jump Shot - blocked 135–128
Q4 0:30 D. Vassell Free Throw 2 of 2 (33 PTS) 135–128
Q4 0:30 D. Vassell Free Throw 1 of 2 (32 PTS) 134–128
Q4 0:30 J. Murray take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Vassell 2 FT) 133–128

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

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 37.8m
28
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.0

A lethal combination of high-volume perimeter shooting and excellent hustle (+6.0) drove a strong positive rating. He consistently punished defensive rotations, nearly doubling his recent scoring average while remaining highly engaged on the defensive end (+5.2). His floor-spacing gravity opened up the entire offense and created driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 36.2m
37
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+27.7

Unstoppable offensive creation at all three levels generated a massive Box impact (+31.4) that dictated the terms of the game. He dissected the defense with elite scoring efficiency, continuing his scorching recent stretch. While his defensive metrics were minimal (+1.0), his shot-making gravity completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +32.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +9.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 36.0m
21
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.8

Hyper-efficient scoring and elite playmaking anchored a positive, though somewhat subdued, overall impact. He controlled the game's tempo perfectly without forcing his own offense, taking only high-value shots. His defensive (+3.1) and hustle (+3.4) metrics were solid, but his relatively low shot volume limited his total Box impact compared to his usual dominance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +9.5
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 73.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 33.7m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

A high volume of missed threes neutralized his otherwise strong defensive (+4.6) and hustle (+3.5) contributions. He was highly active and disruptive on the wing, but the offensive inefficiency prevented him from registering a positive net impact. The defensive stops were often given right back via empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 22.8m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

Empty offensive possessions from poor perimeter shooting stalled the team's momentum and dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he provided solid defensive (+4.2) and hustle (+2.5) value, the missed jumpers outweighed his energetic effort. His shot selection ultimately compromised his two-way effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Inefficient volume shooting severely damaged his net impact by creating numerous empty possessions. He offered very little defensive (+1.1) or hustle (+1.2) value to compensate for the clanked perimeter attempts. The scoring bump from his recent average was entirely negated by the poor shot quality and lack of peripheral contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 19.3m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.3

A disastrous shooting night completely derailed his impact, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. Despite strong hustle (+4.8) and capable defense (+2.7), the sheer number of blown layups and missed jumpers killed offensive momentum. His relentless energy couldn't overcome the offensive black hole he created.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 13.8m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Missed perimeter attempts and low overall involvement led to a negative impact in his backup center minutes. He failed to generate significant defensive (+1.7) or hustle (+1.4) value to anchor the second unit. The lack of interior presence allowed the opposition to capitalize during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Dominant physical presence on the glass secured crucial extra possessions and provided a solid positive impact. He was highly efficient with his limited touches and anchored the paint defensively (+3.9). His ability to control the restricted area compensated for a sharp drop in his recent scoring average.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
25
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.4

Impact was propelled by aggressive, high-value shot selection from the perimeter that stretched the defense. His relentless activity on the glass and strong defensive metrics (+5.2) created extra possessions and stifled opponent momentum. The massive scoring surge capitalized on his two-way energy, making him a dominant floor-spacer.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +12.7
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 34.1m
15
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-6.4

A severe drop in shooting efficiency cratered his impact, as a high volume of missed shots resulted in empty trips. His inability to find a rhythm offensively overshadowed his playmaking and fueled opponent fast breaks. The offensive struggles entirely negated his otherwise solid defensive (+4.5) contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.9%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 31.3m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+30.2

A blistering perimeter barrage punished drop coverages and late closeouts to nearly triple his recent scoring average. His impeccable shot selection fueled an elite offensive impact (+33.2 Box), completely warping the opponent's defensive scheme. The sheer gravity and efficiency of his scoring carried his overall rating despite modest defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +31.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +9.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 30.9m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.7

A barrage of empty possessions from missed jumpers severely dragged down his overall rating. His inability to generate stops or high-value hustle plays left him exposed on the defensive end (-0.5). The sheer volume of clanked perimeter shots killed offensive flow and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luke Kornet 27.7m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Crucial stability in the paint and highly efficient interior finishing anchored his positive impact. By avoiding costly mistakes and capitalizing on high-percentage looks, he maximized his value around the rim. His defensive presence (+4.7) deterred drivers and secured the restricted area during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Steady, efficient shot creation provided reliable secondary offense without dominating the ball. He blended perfectly into the team's flow, balancing his scoring with solid hustle (+2.2) and defensive (+1.8) metrics. His ability to capitalize on defensive rotations kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

A lack of offensive aggression and inability to disrupt the opponent's flow limited his effectiveness. He simply didn't generate enough positive events or hustle plays to offset minor defensive lapses (-1.1). The passive approach prevented him from establishing any meaningful rhythm on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 15.3m
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Exceptional defensive (+6.9) and hustle (+5.2) metrics drove a massive positive rating in a highly disruptive stint. He continued his streak of highly efficient scoring by maximizing his touches without forcing bad looks. His relentless point-of-attack pressure created a significant momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +7.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 12.5m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Veteran savvy and capable defensive positioning (+2.6) yielded a positive return in limited action. He capitalized on his few offensive touches, providing a noticeable scoring upgrade over his recent average without forcing the issue. His presence helped stabilize the second unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

A lack of peripheral stats and virtually zero hustle plays (+0.2) caused his overall impact to slip into the negative. Despite perfect shooting in a brief appearance, he failed to generate any meaningful defensive disruption. The minimal court time wasn't enough to establish a positive rhythm beyond a single offensive sequence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Solid defensive positioning (+2.5) buoyed a brief, low-impact stint. He managed to tread water by avoiding costly mistakes and hitting a timely perimeter shot. His overall involvement was too limited to swing the game, but he provided stable rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0