Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 203 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen 6/19 -9.1
George Hard 10/17 +7.5
Bailey 8/15 +2.9
Sensabaugh 7/13 +2.3
Filipowski 4/8 -0.4
Anderson 6/7 +4.8
Nurkić Open 4/6 +0.9
Mykhailiuk Hard 1/5 -2.9
Clayton Jr. Hard 0/5 -5.2
Collier 1/4 -2.3

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 12/24 +8.1
Moody Hard 6/17 -3.3
Hield Hard 8/13 +6.3
Butler III Open 8/11 +3.8
Payton II Open 4/8 -0.7
Post 3/8 -2.1
Richard 3/7 +0.4
Jackson-Davis Open 2/6 -3.9
Santos 3/4 +2.3
Podziemski Hard 1/4 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
GSW
47/99 Field Goals 51/104
47.5% Field Goal % 49.0%
11/36 3-Pointers 19/52
30.6% 3-Point % 36.5%
12/18 Free Throws 13/18
66.7% Free Throw % 72.2%
54.7% True Shooting % 59.9%
58 Total Rebounds 60
14 Offensive 16
33 Defensive 34
32 Assists 34
2.29 Assist/TO Ratio 3.40
14 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 11
6 Blocks 5
14 Fouls 14
66 Points in Paint 56
21 Fast Break Pts 14
16 Points off TOs 17
17 Second Chance Pts 21
41 Bench Points 52
11 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Keyonte George
28 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 37.8 MIN
+25.37
2
Jimmy Butler III
18 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 28.6 MIN
+22.46
3
Stephen Curry
31 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 29.0 MIN
+22.02
4
Buddy Hield
20 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 22.7 MIN
+19.76
5
Ace Bailey
21 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 29.5 MIN
+17.23
6
Gary Payton II
9 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 20.8 MIN
+13.55
7
Brice Sensabaugh
16 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 18.5 MIN
+13.53
8
Kyle Anderson
12 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 23.6 MIN
+13.28
9
Kyle Filipowski
11 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 15.5 MIN
+12.77
10
Will Richard
9 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 21.7 MIN
+12.01
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 B. Sensabaugh running Layup (16 PTS) 117–134
Q4 0:22 B. Sensabaugh STEAL (1 STL) 115–134
Q4 0:22 P. Spencer bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 115–134
Q4 0:43 K. Filipowski tip Layup (11 PTS) 115–134
Q4 0:43 K. Filipowski REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 113–134
Q4 0:46 MISS B. Sensabaugh 3PT 113–134
Q4 0:58 B. Hield cutting finger roll Layup (20 PTS) (G. Santos 2 AST) 113–134
Q4 1:16 I. Collier driving Layup (2 PTS) 113–132
Q4 1:29 G. Santos kicked ball VIOLATION 111–132
Q4 1:40 B. Podziemski Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 111–132
Q4 1:40 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–131
Q4 1:40 MISS B. Podziemski Free Throw 1 of 2 111–131
Q4 1:40 W. Clayton Jr. shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Podziemski 2 FT) 111–131
Q4 1:45 T. Jackson-Davis defensive goaltending VIOLATION 111–131
Q4 1:45 K. Anderson driving finger roll Layup (12 PTS) 111–131

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 Moses Moody 29.2m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Chucking a heavy volume of three-point attempts with poor returns severely damaged his offensive value. Despite excellent hustle and strong defensive metrics, the sheer amount of wasted possessions offset his effort on the other end. The inability to attack closeouts and diversify his shot profile resulted in a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephen Curry 29.0m
31
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.8

Relentless perimeter pressure and high-volume shot-making dictated the entire flow of the game. He warped the defense with his movement, launching a barrage of threes to keep the opponent in constant rotation. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics amplified the damage of his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 6/17 (35.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +21.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +9.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.1

Surgical precision in the mid-range and elite foul-drawing generated a massive positive impact. He manipulated matchups effortlessly, using his strength to create high-percentage looks and collapse the defense for kick-outs. A dominant defensive presence rounded out a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 27.6m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Outstanding defensive anchoring salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive performance. His tendency to settle for contested perimeter shots dragged down his scoring efficiency. However, his rim protection and secondary playmaking kept his overall impact slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gary Payton II 20.8m
9
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.4

Exceptional connective passing and timely cutting drove a highly productive stint. He operated perfectly within the offensive flow, generating easy looks for teammates while finishing his own chances at the rim. Solid point-of-attack defense complimented his surprising playmaking output.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Buddy Hield 22.7m
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.2

A massive bounce-back performance was fueled by lethal catch-and-shoot execution. He punished defensive lapses in transition, spacing the floor perfectly to knock down a high rate of his perimeter looks. This sudden eruption of efficient scoring completely tilted the offensive math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Richard 21.7m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Opportunistic perimeter shooting and active defensive rotations generated a slightly positive impact. He provided a necessary scoring bump by knocking down open corner threes when the defense collapsed. Solid hustle plays on the margins helped offset a few missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Elite interior defense and strong rebounding fundamentals drove his positive impact. He broke out of a recent scoring drought by finding soft spots in the dunker spot, though his finishing was slightly erratic. His ability to alter shots at the rim provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

A stark drop in scoring aggression limited his ability to influence the game offensively. While he provided strong perimeter defense, his reluctance to hunt his own shot led to stagnant half-court sets. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 13.4m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.3

Extreme passivity on offense created a void that tanked his overall rating. Failing to look for his shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes for others. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to bend the defense rendered his minutes highly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 9.0m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Hyper-efficient finishing in limited minutes maximized his brief rotation stint. He capitalized on every touch, attacking closeouts decisively to maintain his streak of highly efficient shooting games. Quick decision-making and solid positional defense ensured he was a net positive while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -77.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 37.8m
28
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.8

Elite shot-making and high-level playmaking generated a massive box score impact. He dissected the defense with precision, balancing aggressive drives with sharp perimeter shooting to dictate the game's tempo. Strong defensive metrics further validated a masterful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 32.7m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-volume inefficiency defined this outing, as chunking a massive number of missed field goals dragged down his net score. Despite active rebounding and decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions outweighed his secondary contributions. The pattern of forcing contested looks from deep severely limited Utah's half-court ceiling.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 29.5m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Shot creation and defensive activity drove a positive overall impact. He consistently found his spots on the perimeter, hitting timely jumpers that kept the offense afloat. His two-way engagement, marked by strong hustle numbers, solidified a highly productive rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 24.2m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Solid interior finishing and strong hustle metrics were overshadowed by hidden negative value that sank his total impact. While he dominated the glass in his minutes, defensive lapses or unrecorded mistakes likely bled points on the other end. A lack of offensive volume prevented him from outscoring the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 20.1m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.3

Severe regression from his recent shooting efficiency tanked his overall impact. Missing every perimeter attempt created dead possessions that stifled offensive momentum. His minor defensive contributions weren't nearly enough to offset the poor shot selection and inability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.1

Flawless shot selection and methodical distribution fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by taking only high-percentage looks around the basket. His connective passing and steady team defense ensured a positive net rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.5

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped his overall rating despite respectable defensive effort. Failing to generate rim pressure or create advantages off the dribble led to stagnant possessions when he ran the point. The steep drop-off in scoring from his previous outing highlighted an inability to find an offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Consistent scoring punch and confident perimeter shooting kept his impact firmly in the green. He capitalized on defensive rotations, hitting timely jumpers to sustain offensive momentum. Adequate defensive metrics ensured his scoring output translated directly to a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-18.9

A complete offensive blank destroyed his net impact. Missing every shot attempt, mostly from beyond the arc, created empty trips that allowed the opponent to build momentum. While he tried to compensate with playmaking and hustle, the lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -4.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maintained his streak of highly efficient shooting by picking his spots carefully in the paint. His defensive positioning and strong work on the glass anchored the second unit effectively. Even with a drop in scoring volume from his recent average, his efficiency generated excellent value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0