Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 184 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III 15/22 +12.6
Fears 8/17 -2.8
Queen 5/14 -4.3
Jones 6/11 +2.9
Bey 4/11 -1.9
Hawkins Hard 2/6 -0.2
Peavy Open 0/4 -5.1
Alvarado Hard 2/3 +2.8
Matković Open 2/3 +0.3
Looney 1/3 -0.4

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 8/19 -2.7
Fox Hard 9/14 +6.1
Vassell Hard 6/13 +4.3
Castle Hard 5/13 -3.3
Barnes Hard 6/8 +6.6
Champagnie 4/7 +2.1
Johnson Open 4/7 -1.3
Sochan Open 5/6 +1.6
Waters III Hard 1/2 +1.0
Bryant Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
SAS
45/94 Field Goals 48/90
47.9% Field Goal % 53.3%
15/38 3-Pointers 14/40
39.5% 3-Point % 35.0%
14/17 Free Throws 16/18
82.4% Free Throw % 88.9%
58.6% True Shooting % 64.3%
48 Total Rebounds 49
11 Offensive 10
29 Defensive 33
27 Assists 31
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 2.58
11 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 6
2 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 20
54 Points in Paint 62
16 Fast Break Pts 20
19 Points off TOs 11
17 Second Chance Pts 20
30 Bench Points 39
0 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Trey Murphy III
41 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 38.1 MIN
+41.66
2
Keldon Johnson
12 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 19.5 MIN
+20.7
3
De'Aaron Fox
24 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 30.5 MIN
+19.29
4
Herbert Jones
15 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 38.0 MIN
+15.57
5
Jeremy Sochan
10 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 20.0 MIN
+13.23
6
Stephon Castle
14 PTS · 4 REB · 14 AST · 35.1 MIN
+12.18
7
Jeremiah Fears
18 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 31.4 MIN
+11.49
8
Harrison Barnes
15 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 27.9 MIN
+11.15
9
Devin Vassell
16 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 33.0 MIN
+10.15
10
Saddiq Bey
10 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 29.9 MIN
+10.11
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 V. Wembanyama REBOUND (Off:0 Def:18) 119–126
Q4 0:09 MISS D. Queen 25' pullup 3PT 119–126
Q4 0:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 119–126
Q4 0:12 V. Wembanyama BLOCK (3 BLK) 119–126
Q4 0:12 MISS J. Fears driving Layup - blocked 119–126
Q4 0:19 D. Fox Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 119–126
Q4 0:19 D. Fox Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 119–125
Q4 0:19 H. Jones personal FOUL (4 PF) (Fox 2 FT) 119–124
Q4 0:20 V. Wembanyama REBOUND (Off:0 Def:17) 119–124
Q4 0:23 MISS T. Murphy III 26' pullup bank 3PT 119–124
Q4 0:29 D. Fox 10' driving floating Jump Shot (22 PTS) 119–124
Q4 0:41 J. Fears personal FOUL (3 PF) 119–122
Q4 0:59 J. Fears driving finger roll Layup (18 PTS) (T. Murphy III 3 AST) 119–122
Q4 1:14 D. Queen REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 117–122
Q4 1:17 MISS D. Vassell 27' 3PT 117–122

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
S Stephon Castle 35.1m
16
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite playmaking volume was severely undermined by a complete inability to stretch the floor, as defenders sagged off him to clog the passing lanes. His massive struggles from deep allowed the opposition to pack the paint, neutralizing the value of his high-level facilitation. Furthermore, negative defensive metrics suggest he struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +6.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 33.0m
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Despite strong perimeter shot-making, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive miscommunications and an inability to pressure the rim. He settled heavily for outside jumpers, which limited his free-throw generation and allowed the defense to set up in transition. A lack of playmaking diversity meant his scoring punch didn't adequately elevate the surrounding lineups.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

An otherworldly defensive performance (+14.1) was entirely offset by a disastrous perimeter shooting night that killed the offensive flow. He settled for heavily contested above-the-break threes instead of leveraging his massive size in the paint, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. While he completely locked down the rim, his steep scoring drop and poor shot selection kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
S De'Aaron Fox 30.5m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.2

Relentless downhill attacking broke the opposing shell and drove a highly positive net impact. He dictated the pace beautifully, using his elite speed to generate high-percentage looks in the paint and punish retreating bigs. This aggressive rim pressure not only spiked his scoring but also created a cascading effect that opened up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +19.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 27.9m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Hyper-efficient spot-up shooting wasn't quite enough to overcome the hidden costs of poor rotational defense. He capitalized brilliantly on drive-and-kick sequences to more than double his recent scoring average, but his struggles to contain quicker wings on the perimeter bled points on the other end. The scoring surge masked a tendency to get caught ball-watching during critical weak-side closeouts.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack erased the value of his highly efficient offensive output. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to fight through off-ball screens, bleeding points that negated his perimeter shot-making. While he spaced the floor well, his inability to string together stops kept his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Surgical efficiency and versatile defensive switching anchored a highly effective rotational stint. He thrived as a short-roll connector, making quick decisions that kept the offense humming without demanding high usage. His ability to seamlessly toggle between guarding wings and bigs disrupted the opponent's primary screening actions.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.1

Bully-ball drives and exceptional defensive rebounding fueled a massive positive impact off the bench. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, drawing defensive attention and kicking out to open shooters. His physicality set the tone for the second unit, completely overwhelming the opponent's smaller wing rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Marginal offensive usage and a lack of hustle plays resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. He operated strictly as a floor spacer but rarely found daylight against tight perimeter coverage. Without the ability to put the ball on the deck and create, his offensive impact was easily neutralized by disciplined closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +90.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.0

A brief, invisible stint left a negative footprint due to a complete lack of offensive involvement. He failed to command any attention from the defense, allowing his man to aggressively double the primary ball handlers. Without any scoring gravity or secondary playmaking, his minutes essentially forced the team to play four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.1m
41
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+47.3

An absolute offensive explosion drove a massive +25.1 impact, fueled by elite shot-making that yielded a +183% scoring surge over his recent average. His hyper-efficient perimeter isolation game completely broke the defense, generating high-value looks without sacrificing defensive integrity (+5.2). The sheer volume of converted contested jumpers masked any minor rotational lapses.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +35.8
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +8.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 38.0m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite defensive disruption (+6.8) and a surprising scoring punch kept his baseline high, but hidden costs ultimately pushed his net impact slightly into the red. His aggressive perimeter ball pressure generated deflections, yet over-helping on drives compromised the weak-side rotation. Despite nearly doubling his recent scoring average, a few ill-timed fouls negated his two-way contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 31.4m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Relentless energy defined this performance, as a staggering +11.1 hustle score offset a mediocre perimeter shooting night. He constantly generated extra possessions through offensive rebounding and loose-ball recoveries, punishing the defense with secondary actions. His downhill rim pressure consistently collapsed the paint, making up for the lack of three-point spacing.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 29.9m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Clunky offensive execution dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical closeouts, resulting in a severe scoring drop from his recent baseline and multiple empty possessions. A lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed jumpers directly fueled the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevon Looney 16.9m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Quietly effective on the margins with positive hustle and defensive scores, but a lack of offensive gravity limited his overall value. He anchored the paint well during his brief stint, yet his inability to punish switches allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes. The negative impact largely stems from offensive stagnation while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Derik Queen 24.6m
13
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.1

Poor shot selection at the rim severely undercut his value, as a high volume of forced interior looks resulted in empty trips. Although he generated solid hustle metrics and facilitated well from the elbows, the inefficiency of his self-created offense dragged down the unit's overall rating. The defense consistently dared him to shoot, and his inability to convert those looks stalled the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

A steep drop in scoring efficiency and complete lack of peripheral stats resulted in a heavily negative impact score. He failed to separate from top-locking defenders, neutralizing his off-ball gravity and forcing him into contested, late-clock jumpers. Without his typical shooting rhythm, his presence on the floor actively bottlenecked the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 17.6m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.7

An absolute zero in the scoring column derailed his net impact, as he failed to capitalize on multiple open spot-up opportunities. While he brought decent energy to the glass, his offensive invisibility allowed his primary defender to roam and double-team the ball handlers. The inability to punish closeouts made him a severe liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring -3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.4

Offensive efficiency and timely playmaking drove a positive net score, completely overshadowing a rare negative defensive metric. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with perfect perimeter shooting, punishing drop coverages and maximizing his limited touches. His ability to organize the second unit's spacing proved crucial during a pivotal second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

A low-usage stint resulted in a slightly negative impact, largely due to an inability to establish deep post position. While he maintained his streak of highly efficient shooting, his overall volume plummeted as he struggled to navigate physical pick-and-roll coverages. He provided adequate rim deterrence, but simply didn't tilt the floor enough offensively to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1