Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 9/18 +2.2
Martin 2/10 -6.1
Clowney Hard 1/9 -6.5
Powell 5/8 +4.7
Williams 5/8 +3.7
Wilson 0/8 -8.6
Dëmin Hard 4/6 +4.0
Claxton Open 3/4 +1.5
Etienne Hard 0/4 -4.0
Sharpe Open 3/3 +1.8

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Towns Open 10/17 -0.5
Brunson 6/14 -0.3
Anunoby 6/11 +2.5
Bridges 6/8 +6.2
Clarkson 5/8 +2.5
Hart 5/7 +3.0
Yabusele Hard 1/6 -2.7
Shamet Hard 2/5 +0.3
Robinson Open 4/4 +2.4
McBride Hard 0/4 -3.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
NYK
33/82 Field Goals 48/89
40.2% Field Goal % 53.9%
14/45 3-Pointers 17/37
31.1% 3-Point % 45.9%
18/24 Free Throws 21/26
75.0% Free Throw % 80.8%
52.9% True Shooting % 66.7%
46 Total Rebounds 55
15 Offensive 15
23 Defensive 31
21 Assists 31
1.11 Assist/TO Ratio 2.21
19 Turnovers 14
5 Steals 9
8 Blocks 3
25 Fouls 25
36 Points in Paint 58
4 Fast Break Pts 18
18 Points off TOs 25
11 Second Chance Pts 25
47 Bench Points 44
0 Largest Lead 39
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
28 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 28.3 MIN
+26.77
2
OG Anunoby
19 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 27.1 MIN
+21.26
3
Mitchell Robinson
8 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 16.6 MIN
+17.44
4
Day'Ron Sharpe
10 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 12.2 MIN
+15.67
5
Mikal Bridges
16 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 27.7 MIN
+15.64
6
Josh Hart
11 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 21.1 MIN
+14.93
7
Michael Porter Jr.
25 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 25.9 MIN
+14.81
8
Nic Claxton
12 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 22.0 MIN
+13.01
9
Jordan Clarkson
11 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 18.1 MIN
+10.65
10
Drake Powell
15 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 22.5 MIN
+9.85
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 P. Dadiet Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 98–134
Q4 0:06 P. Dadiet Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 98–133
Q4 0:06 T. Martin personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dadiet 2 FT) 98–132
Q4 0:08 A. Hukporti REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 98–132
Q4 0:11 MISS J. Wilson 28' 3PT 98–132
Q4 0:17 T. Martin REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 98–132
Q4 0:20 MISS T. Etienne 25' running 3PT 98–132
Q4 0:23 D. Powell REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 98–132
Q4 0:26 MISS G. Yabusele 3PT 98–132
Q4 0:46 TEAM defensive REBOUND 98–132
Q4 0:49 MISS T. Martin driving Layup 98–132
Q4 1:01 M. Diawara 25' 3PT (5 PTS) (T. Kolek 3 AST) 98–132
Q4 1:13 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 98–129
Q4 1:17 MISS T. Martin 16' pullup Shot 98–129
Q4 1:38 G. Yabusele Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 98–129

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

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 28.8m
19
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

Forcing contested shots against set defenses severely dragged down his overall impact despite the raw production. A tendency to over-dribble into traffic resulted in empty possessions that allowed the opponent to dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +66.1
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
28
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+28.2

Overpowered the opposing frontcourt with relentless interior aggression, driving a massive +24.4 box score impact. Abandoning the three-point line to focus purely on bullying mismatches in the post proved to be a highly effective strategy.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +22.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +13.3
Defense -0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 27.7m
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Surgical precision from the perimeter forced the defense to overextend, opening up the floor for the entire unit. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications with lethal spot-up shooting, driving a highly efficient offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 27.1m
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.0

Absolute two-way dominance was highlighted by a staggering +8.7 hustle rating, as he seemingly deflected every pass in his vicinity. He completely neutralized the opponent's primary wing scorer while punishing defensive gaps with lethal catch-and-shoot execution.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +60.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.0

Flawless execution as a lob threat and putback artist extended his streak of elite efficiency around the rim. His towering presence in the drop coverage scheme (+8.3 Def) completely deterred guards from challenging the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +134.7
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +3.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

While he provided adequate floor spacing, his inability to contain dribble penetration eroded his overall value. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, turning his offensive contributions into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Hart 21.1m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.8

Classic glue-guy performance defined by relentless rebounding and elite transition defense (+4.8 Def). He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer willpower (+3.3 Hustle), turning broken plays into high-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Provided a clean, efficient spark off the bench by eliminating his usual erratic shot selection. Attacking closeouts decisively rather than settling for contested jumpers allowed him to seamlessly boost the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.0

Offensive zeroes completely tanked his value, as he failed to capitalize on the spacing created by the starting unit. Even a commendable effort fighting over screens (+3.8 Def) couldn't salvage a night where he was an absolute non-factor with the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Settling for outside jumpers instead of utilizing his physical frame inside severely limited his effectiveness. Bailing out the defense with early-clock threes prevented the offense from establishing any interior rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

Struggled to influence the game flow during a brief appearance, looking lost in the half-court defensive rotations. A lack of physicality on the glass prevented him from making a meaningful impact despite converting his only look.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Barely registered during garbage time, failing to assert himself offensively in a limited window. Rushed his few attempts and struggled to find the game's rhythm against the opposing bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Capitalized on every touch during a five-minute burst, displaying excellent decisiveness on the perimeter. His flawless shot-making provided a sudden jolt of offense that maximized his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Facilitated well by keeping the ball moving, but defensive liabilities kept his overall impact in the red. Opponents easily blew past him at the point of attack (-0.8 Def), negating the value of his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
25
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.1

High-volume perimeter execution fueled a strong positive rating, as he consistently punished late closeouts. His willingness to crash the glass and contest shots (+1.6 Def) ensured his scoring wasn't empty calories.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 25.5m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite excellent shot selection and strong defensive metrics (+3.0 Def), his overall impact slipped into the negative due to empty-calorie possessions. A lack of rebounding presence and poorly timed turnovers during the second quarter negated his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 22.4m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting slump that completely killed the team's half-court spacing. Forcing contested looks from deep negated his otherwise respectable defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 22.0m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite rim-running and hyper-efficient finishing drove a massive +15.1 box score impact. He dominated the interior matchups, generating extra possessions through relentless hustle (+3.3) while anchoring the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Terance Mann 17.7m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.8

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, as he passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim. While his perimeter defense remained solid (+1.7 Def), playing 4-on-5 on the other end stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+6.2 Def) defined this performance, completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions. His timely perimeter shot-making paired perfectly with his high-motor hustle, resulting in a perfectly balanced two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

A barrage of forced, low-quality jumpers severely damaged the offensive flow and tanked his overall rating. Settling for contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the basket allowed the defense to easily rebound and run.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 22.5m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

A significant scoring surge masked underlying rotational issues that kept his overall impact slightly negative. While his perimeter stroke was dialed in, he consistently surrendered driving lanes on defense, giving back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Jalen Wilson 20.3m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.3

An abysmal shooting night completely derailed his value, as he repeatedly bricked open looks and stalled offensive momentum. The inability to convert on the perimeter allowed the defense to pack the paint, resulting in a staggering -15.9 net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring -6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Utterly dominated the interior during a brief stint, utilizing his physical frame to bully opposing bigs. Flawless finishing around the basket combined with excellent rim protection (+4.6 Def) resulted in a massive per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -62.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Wasted possessions and poor shot selection from beyond the arc quickly turned his short rotation into a negative. Firing blanks from deep without contributing as a playmaker or rebounder made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Maximized a brief cameo by providing immediate energy and decisive shot-making. His active hands and willingness to dive for loose balls (+2.7 Hustle) injected life into the second unit during a stagnant stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0