Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker 7/19 -4.0
Allen Hard 8/17 +2.8
Brooks Hard 6/14 +0.2
Goodwin 5/11 +1.0
Dunn 4/9 -2.3
O'Neale Hard 4/7 +4.4
Williams Open 5/6 +2.4
Richards Open 3/5 -0.2
Gillespie Hard 1/5 -1.7
Ighodaro Open 1/2 -0.8

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Thompson Hard 6/17 -0.1
Flagg 6/15 -1.0
Williams 7/13 -0.9
Christie Hard 4/9 +1.0
Gafford Open 6/7 +3.3
Russell Hard 2/7 -2.6
Marshall 4/6 +3.0
Washington 3/5 +0.1
Hardy Hard 3/4 +3.8
Cisse Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
DAL
44/95 Field Goals 43/86
46.3% Field Goal % 50.0%
14/35 3-Pointers 17/47
40.0% 3-Point % 36.2%
21/26 Free Throws 11/17
80.8% Free Throw % 64.7%
57.8% True Shooting % 61.0%
52 Total Rebounds 55
13 Offensive 8
33 Defensive 37
31 Assists 32
2.58 Assist/TO Ratio 1.52
12 Turnovers 19
13 Steals 10
3 Blocks 10
20 Fouls 23
52 Points in Paint 52
21 Fast Break Pts 19
31 Points off TOs 16
10 Second Chance Pts 13
33 Bench Points 48
18 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Grayson Allen
23 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 32.9 MIN
+21.61
2
Brandon Williams
17 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 33.2 MIN
+18.09
3
Mark Williams
10 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 26.3 MIN
+17.26
4
Daniel Gafford
15 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 26.7 MIN
+15.33
5
Dillon Brooks
18 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 31.0 MIN
+14.68
6
Jordan Goodwin
13 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 20.0 MIN
+13.86
7
Devin Booker
26 PTS · 3 REB · 9 AST · 38.4 MIN
+13.32
8
Royce O'Neale
13 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 27.5 MIN
+11.26
9
Cooper Flagg
16 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 33.7 MIN
+10.0
10
Naji Marshall
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 26.1 MIN
+9.94
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 D. Booker REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 123–114
Q4 0:09 MISS C. Flagg 25' pullup 3PT 123–114
Q4 0:14 D. Booker Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 123–114
Q4 0:14 D. Booker Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 122–114
Q4 0:14 M. Christie personal FOUL (5 PF) (Booker 2 FT) 121–114
Q4 0:15 D. Booker STEAL (2 STL) 121–114
Q4 0:15 K. Thompson bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 121–114
Q4 0:15 D. Booker Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 121–114
Q4 0:15 D. Booker Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 120–114
Q4 0:15 C. Flagg take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Booker 2 FT) 119–114
Q4 0:18 B. Williams driving DUNK (17 PTS) 119–114
Q4 0:24 G. Allen Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 119–112
Q4 0:24 G. Allen Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 118–112
Q4 0:24 M. Christie personal FOUL (4 PF) (Allen 2 FT) 117–112
Q4 0:32 D. Brooks REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 117–112

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 34.1m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.6

Hemorrhaged value on the defensive end by consistently dying on screens and losing his man off the ball. Even with a respectable shooting performance, his inability to contain dribble penetration created cascading breakdowns that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -4.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 33.7m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.7

A stark drop in scoring efficiency and forced isolation attempts severely dragged down his offensive value. While his weak-side shot-blocking and overall defensive metrics remained elite, his wasted possessions in the half-court ultimately hurt the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 4
17
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.5

Dictated the tempo flawlessly, weaving through traffic to create high-value looks for teammates. His exceptional point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, cementing a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +5.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Daniel Gafford 26.6m
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.0

Anchored the interior masterfully by erasing mistakes at the rim and finishing everything thrown his way. His massive defensive impact was highlighted by his ability to seamlessly switch onto guards late in the shot clock without fouling.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +8.5
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Completely tilted the floor during a microscopic stint by attacking mismatches in the post. His immediate defensive physicality and quick-decision scoring provided an electric, albeit brief, jolt to the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Cratered his overall impact by forcing a staggering number of contested perimeter shots, completely ignoring the flow of the offense. While he hit enough to boost his raw scoring, the sheer volume of empty possessions and a lack of secondary hustle plays severely damaged the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 6/16 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Struggled to find his rhythm within the flow of the offense, often stalling possessions with indecisive ball-handling. His lack of off-ball movement allowed the defense to rest, negating the value of his occasional efficient finishes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Moussa Cisse 14.8m
4
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Dominated the glass and altered multiple shots during a highly energetic rotation stint. His commitment to doing the dirty work—setting hard screens and contesting vertically—drove a massive positive swing in a short window.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +11.4
Defense -3.0
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.9

Short-circuited the offense with a string of heavily contested, early-clock three-pointers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His lack of rim pressure made the attack entirely one-dimensional and easy to guard.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -60.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 12.1m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

Bleed value on the defensive end by repeatedly getting blown by in isolation matchups. His efficient spot-up shooting was entirely undone by his inability to stay in front of his man or contribute on the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.4

Was a complete non-factor offensively and looked a step slow on defensive rotations. Failed to generate a single hustle play, allowing opponents to exploit his side of the floor during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
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
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Logged a mere handful of seconds at the end of a quarter, primarily serving as a situational body. Did not have enough runway to influence the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 38.4m
26
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.3

Overcame a brutal shooting night by leaning heavily into his playmaking and defensive engagement. While clanking multiple contested pull-ups, he salvaged his net impact by jumping passing lanes and maintaining high-intensity point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +4.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Grayson Allen 32.9m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.6

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting transition threes and attacking closeouts with aggression. His surprisingly robust defensive metrics were driven by excellent screen navigation and timely digs on driving ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 31.0m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Despite an aggressive offensive mindset that yielded a higher scoring output than usual, his overall impact flatlined due to erratic shot selection inside the arc. He surrendered too many driving lanes on the perimeter, neutralizing the value of his spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Royce O'Neale 27.5m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Highly efficient from deep, yet his overall footprint dipped into the negative because of sluggish transition recoveries. A lack of secondary hustle plays and loose ball recoveries limited his ability to swing momentum during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 26.3m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Completely controlled the paint through relentless rim-running and high-level rim protection. His massive hustle metrics reflect a dominant effort in generating second-chance opportunities and altering shots as a weak-side helper.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 23.6m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Provided a steadying presence on the wing with disciplined closeouts and active hands in the passing lanes. Missed opportunities on spot-up attempts capped his ceiling, but his baseline defensive reliability kept the lineup afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Punished drop coverage by confidently stepping into pull-up jumpers, providing a massive spark off the bench. His ability to consistently break the paint and collapse the defense drove a highly efficient offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.6

Bogged down the half-court offense with hesitant decision-making and poor execution on drive-and-kick reads. Struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding his offensive inefficiency with defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 11.7m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Failed to establish any offensive rhythm, looking lost during short-roll situations. Despite decent positional defense, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed opponents to extend crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Maximized a brief rotation stint by setting bruising screens and rolling with purpose. His vertical gravity forced weak-side tags, opening up the perimeter even when he didn't touch the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1