Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 174 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker 13/24 +4.2
Allen Hard 6/15 +1.6
Williams Open 6/12 -3.2
Dunn 4/12 -3.4
Gillespie Hard 3/8 +0.6
O'Neale Hard 3/8 0.0
Goodwin 2/4 +0.5
Ighodaro 1/4 -1.7
Richards Open 1/3 -1.5
Livers Open 1/1 +0.6

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 9/23 +0.5
Moody Hard 7/11 +6.8
Podziemski Hard 5/11 +0.3
Post Hard 5/7 +7.0
Hield Hard 4/7 +3.9
Kuminga 4/7 +0.4
Jackson-Davis Open 3/5 -0.5
Spencer 2/5 -0.9
Butler III 1/5 -3.7
Green 1/2 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
GSW
40/91 Field Goals 41/83
44.0% Field Goal % 49.4%
12/33 3-Pointers 19/42
36.4% 3-Point % 45.2%
15/16 Free Throws 17/20
93.8% Free Throw % 85.0%
54.6% True Shooting % 64.3%
55 Total Rebounds 43
16 Offensive 8
30 Defensive 31
25 Assists 33
1.47 Assist/TO Ratio 2.06
17 Turnovers 15
10 Steals 9
5 Blocks 4
17 Fouls 18
46 Points in Paint 42
12 Fast Break Pts 27
12 Points off TOs 25
17 Second Chance Pts 6
19 Bench Points 63
5 Largest Lead 25
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Devin Booker
38 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 39.4 MIN
+24.68
2
Mark Williams
16 PTS · 16 REB · 4 AST · 27.4 MIN
+23.42
3
Moses Moody
24 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 33.9 MIN
+21.91
4
Stephen Curry
28 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 33.5 MIN
+17.11
5
Quinten Post
14 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 27.2 MIN
+16.2
6
Grayson Allen
16 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 35.1 MIN
+14.14
7
Pat Spencer
7 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 11.2 MIN
+12.27
8
Buddy Hield
12 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 19.9 MIN
+10.88
9
Ryan Dunn
10 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 31.4 MIN
+10.59
10
Brandin Podziemski
13 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 24.2 MIN
+8.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 GSW shot clock Team TURNOVER 107–118
Q4 0:31 M. Williams cutting DUNK (16 PTS) (G. Allen 5 AST) 107–118
Q4 0:45 J. Goodwin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 105–118
Q4 0:48 MISS M. Moody 24' 3PT 105–118
Q4 0:58 P. Spencer REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 105–118
Q4 1:01 MISS G. Allen 3PT 105–118
Q4 1:20 B. Podziemski offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 105–118
Q4 1:20 B. Podziemski offensive FOUL (3 PF) 105–118
Q4 1:34 M. Williams offensive foul TURNOVER (2 TO) 105–118
Q4 1:34 M. Williams offensive FOUL (1 PF) 105–118
Q4 1:44 B. Podziemski personal FOUL (2 PF) 105–118
Q4 1:56 M. Moody cutting Layup (24 PTS) (D. Green 8 AST) 105–118
Q4 2:07 B. Podziemski REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 105–116
Q4 2:09 MISS D. Booker 19' fadeaway Shot 105–116
Q4 2:19 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–116

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 33.5m
28
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Relentless off-ball conditioning exhausted his primary defenders, generating immense gravitational value that doesn't fully show in the shooting splits. Despite struggling to finish inside the arc, his timely perimeter shot-making during the third quarter broke the game open. Active hands in the passing lanes fueled a surprisingly high hustle rating that padded his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Draymond Green 32.8m
2
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-13.6

An absolute refusal to look at the rim allowed the defense to play five-on-four, completely stalling the team's half-court execution. While his vocal leadership and help-defense metrics remained elite, his offensive passivity was a glaring liability. Several forced passes into tight windows resulted in live-ball turnovers that sparked opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Quinten Post 27.2m
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite floor-spacing from the center position completely warped the opposing defense and drove a massive positive impact. He capitalized on pick-and-pop situations flawlessly, punishing bigs who refused to step out to the perimeter. His disciplined verticality at the rim added immense value without drawing unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing contested drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that dragged down his overall rating. He frequently lost track of his man off the ball, leading to easy backdoor scores that offset his scoring efficiency. A lack of defensive rebounding urgency allowed the opponent to extend crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Settling for contested, late-clock jumpers tanked his offensive efficiency during a sluggish first-half stint. He lacked his usual burst when attacking the paint, allowing defenders to easily recover and contest. A failure to generate trips to the free-throw line removed his primary method of salvaging poor shooting nights.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +61.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Moses Moody 33.9m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.6

Exceptional shot selection and decisive catch-and-shoot execution headlined a highly impactful performance. He consistently beat closeouts with one-dribble pull-ups, keeping the offensive flow incredibly smooth. His willingness to crash the offensive glass from the corners generated crucial extra possessions that solidified his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 88.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Taking several charges and diving for loose balls salvaged his net impact on a night where his perimeter jumper abandoned him. He struggled to create separation against longer defenders, leading to a few smothered attempts late in the shot clock. However, his connective passing in transition kept the offense humming just enough to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Buddy Hield 19.9m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his decisive trigger against drop coverage instantly tilted the floor. He didn't force the issue off the bounce, strictly playing within the flow of the drive-and-kick system. His commitment to fighting over screens on the defensive end prevented the usual bleed of points that often limits his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Providing an immediate vertical threat as a roll man forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for shooters. He held his ground admirably against heavier post players, contesting shots without biting on pump fakes. A pair of well-timed weakside blocks highlighted a highly efficient, mistake-free stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 11.2m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.6

Completely disrupted the opponent's second-unit offense with relentless point-of-attack pressure. He made rapid, correct reads in the pick-and-roll, ensuring the ball found the open man before the defense could rotate. This high-IQ connective play drove a massive positive swing in a very short amount of time.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 3.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a very brief appearance, looking hesitant on a fast-break opportunity. He was caught ball-watching on one defensive possession, giving up a baseline cut. The limited run wasn't enough to establish any sort of positive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -206.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -3.5
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 39.4m
38
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+23.1

A masterclass in midrange shot creation drove his massive box score value, consistently punishing drop coverage. Despite the scoring barrage, his overall net impact was muted by defensive lapses and slow rotations on the perimeter. The sheer volume of his isolation success masked a tendency to stall the offensive flow during critical fourth-quarter stretches.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +29.9
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Grayson Allen 35.1m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

Relentless off-ball movement and active hands in passing lanes generated high hustle metrics, keeping his impact afloat. However, his inability to finish through contact on drives severely capped his overall ceiling. He consistently punished defensive rotations from the corners but gave back value by over-helping on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Dunn 31.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite point-of-attack defense kept his overall value from completely tanking despite a brutal shooting night. His tendency to force contested perimeter shots early in the clock severely dragged down his offensive impact. The relentless screen navigation was a bright spot, but the empty offensive possessions ultimately resulted in a net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 27.9m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Bleeding points in transition during the second quarter completely derailed his overall impact metric. While his positional defense remained solid, a string of ill-advised live-ball turnovers fueled the opponent's fast break. He settled for heavily contested looks from the wing rather than keeping the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 27.4m
16
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.1

Anchoring the paint with elite rim deterrence drove a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities by dominating the offensive glass against smaller matchups. His vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +17.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Getting repeatedly targeted in isolation matchups severely damaged his defensive metrics and overall impact. He failed to navigate screens effectively, forcing teammates into difficult rotation scenarios that yielded open perimeter looks. The lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to completely sag off him, clogging the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

High-energy ball pressure and solid hustle metrics couldn't compensate for a lack of offensive rhythm. He struggled to organize the half-court sets against switching defenses, leading to several stagnant possessions. A pair of costly offensive fouls on moving screens further dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 20.3m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.0

Impact cratered due to an inability to finish through contact around the rim, snapping a strong streak of highly efficient performances. He consistently lost his defensive assignments on back-door cuts, giving up easy layups that tanked his net rating. While he showed flashes of good weak-side help, the offensive hesitation made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Maximized his short stint by executing flawless weak-side defensive rotations. He kept the ball moving on offense, avoiding the stagnant possessions that had plagued his recent outings. A crucial offensive rebound in traffic highlighted a highly efficient burst of energy.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Provided a brief but stable interior presence, contesting a pair of shots at the rim to maintain a neutral impact. He executed his screen-setting duties well but didn't see enough floor time to establish an offensive rhythm. A quick foul on a pump fake limited his ability to stay on the floor longer.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
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
-7.6

A brief stint defined by a blown defensive rotation that immediately led to an open corner three. He failed to make any measurable impact on the hustle boards during his limited run. The lack of offensive involvement made him essentially invisible on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -0.8
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0