Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
POR lead OKC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
OKC 2P — 3P —
POR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Williams 7/18 -5.0
Holmgren 9/15 +2.2
Gilgeous-Alexander 8/15 +1.3
Mitchell 5/9 +1.8
Joe Hard 4/8 +2.4
Dort Hard 4/7 +2.3
Williams Hard 1/5 -2.6
Wallace 1/5 -2.7
Williams 3/4 +3.5
Wiggins Hard 2/4 +0.5

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Grant Hard 7/18 -0.4
Avdija 6/14 -3.1
Camara Hard 5/12 +2.8
Love Hard 4/12 -0.7
Murray 5/9 +1.3
Sharpe 3/7 -1.7
Cissoko Hard 1/5 -2.4
Williams III Open 3/4 +0.9
Rupert 1/3 -0.4
Hansen Hard 0/3 -3.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
OKC
POR
44/90 Field Goals 35/89
48.9% Field Goal % 39.3%
10/29 3-Pointers 16/49
34.5% 3-Point % 32.7%
25/32 Free Throws 29/37
78.1% Free Throw % 78.4%
59.1% True Shooting % 54.6%
60 Total Rebounds 57
8 Offensive 13
41 Defensive 36
27 Assists 22
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
12 Turnovers 14
7 Steals 8
9 Blocks 5
29 Fouls 22
56 Points in Paint 36
17 Fast Break Pts 15
22 Points off TOs 12
21 Second Chance Pts 9
49 Bench Points 29
11 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Deni Avdija
31 PTS · 19 REB · 10 AST · 37.2 MIN
+33.56
2
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
26 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 35.8 MIN
+17.11
3
Ajay Mitchell
17 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+15.03
4
Chet Holmgren
19 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+13.99
5
Isaiah Joe
15 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 14.7 MIN
+13.76
6
Toumani Camara
19 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 37.9 MIN
+13.75
7
Robert Williams III
7 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 19.1 MIN
+13.01
8
Kris Murray
13 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 35.2 MIN
+12.99
9
Jalen Williams
16 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 34.4 MIN
+12.28
10
Luguentz Dort
10 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 28.5 MIN
+11.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 D. Avdija Free Throw 1 of 1 (31 PTS) 123–115
Q4 0:05 C. Holmgren shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Avdija 1 FT) 123–114
Q4 0:05 D. Avdija driving Layup (30 PTS) 123–114
Q4 0:11 A. Mitchell Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 123–112
Q4 0:11 A. Mitchell Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 122–112
Q4 0:11 S. Sharpe take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Mitchell 2 FT) 121–112
Q4 0:14 TEAM defensive REBOUND 121–112
Q4 0:16 C. Holmgren BLOCK (3 BLK) 121–112
Q4 0:16 MISS T. Camara driving Layup - blocked 121–112
Q4 0:22 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 121–112
Q4 0:22 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 120–112
Q4 0:22 S. Sharpe take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Gilgeous-Alexander 2 FT) 119–112
Q4 0:23 S. Sharpe take personal FOUL (4 PF) 119–112
Q4 0:24 D. Avdija Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 119–112
Q4 0:24 D. Avdija Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 119–111

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

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 37.9m
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.7

Relentless hustle (+5.0) and high-volume perimeter shooting buoyed his overall value. While his interior finishing left much to be desired, his willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense effectively. Active hands on the defensive end ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 37.2m
31
pts
19
reb
10
ast
Impact
+37.2

Absolute domination of the defensive glass and elite playmaking fueled a monstrous analytical profile. He dictated the pace of the game through his rebounding, immediately initiating transition opportunities that overwhelmed the opponent. Even with a broken outside jumper, his sheer physical imposition controlled the contest.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 19/23 (82.6%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +18.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Murray 35.2m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Despite a massive scoring surge and efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive lapses in crucial moments or unseen rotational errors likely offset his impressive box score production. The raw scoring masked underlying structural issues during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 34.4m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

A heavy diet of forced, inefficient jumpers severely damaged his offensive value. Even though he provided strong defensive resistance (+6.5), the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his net score deep into the negative. His inability to find the bottom of the net derailed the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Sidy Cissoko 20.9m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Poor shot selection and a failure to convert open looks cratered his overall impact. While he showed minor flashes of hustle, his offensive possessions were essentially dead ends that stalled momentum. The inability to punish defensive gaps made him a liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.3

Defensive breakdowns (-1.2) and a lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a disastrous net rating. Despite showing some energy in the hustle department (+3.8), he bled value by failing to contain his assignments on the perimeter. The inability to string together stops completely derailed his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 19.2m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

A massive spike in offensive usage was completely undermined by erratic, low-efficiency shot chucking. While he provided decent defensive resistance, the sheer number of empty trips down the floor neutralized his scoring bump. His aggressive but misguided shot selection resulted in a perfectly flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Elite rim deterrence (+5.7) and highly efficient interior finishing defined his highly productive shift. He capitalized on drop coverages to score easily around the basket, continuing a strong streak of efficient play. His vertical spacing and defensive anchoring completely changed the geometry of the court.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

A complete lack of hustle and negative defensive metrics doomed his brief stint on the floor. He floated through his minutes without making any physical imprint on the game, failing to generate extra possessions. The passive approach quickly pushed his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -51.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Rushing his looks and failing to convert inside the arc quickly sank his value during limited action. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle to compensate for the empty offensive trips. The inability to establish any physical presence made his brief rotation highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Solid defensive positioning (+3.2) barely kept his impact in the green during a very brief cameo. He missed his few offensive opportunities but avoided making catastrophic mistakes on the other end. His value came entirely from holding the fort defensively while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -115.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
26
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.7

Consistent interior scoring and steady playmaking drove a solid, if unspectacular, positive impact. Missing all his looks from beyond the arc slightly capped his ceiling, preventing a truly dominant analytical grade. Still, his ability to generate high-quality offensive possessions kept the overall engine humming.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 34.4m
16
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.1

High-volume missed shots dragged down what was otherwise a stellar defensive and hustle (+3.8) performance. His inability to find an efficient rhythm from the floor nearly erased his positive contributions elsewhere. Ultimately, his playmaking and defensive disruption kept him just above water.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 29.6m
19
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Elite rim protection and active hustle (+5.1) fueled a dominant two-way showing. He punished mismatches inside with highly efficient finishing, surging well past his recent offensive averages. This inside-out dominance created a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +8.5
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 28.5m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Defensive metrics (+6.3) anchored his positive overall impact, compensating for average hustle numbers. He capitalized on his offensive touches to score well above his recent baseline, providing crucial secondary spacing. The solid two-way effort kept his overall net influence firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 21.4m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.8

An offensive disappearing act severely crippled his net impact despite strong hustle metrics (+4.1). Failing to convert open looks tanked his overall value, marking a steep drop-off from his usual production. His perimeter defense simply wasn't enough to offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

Opportunistic shot selection and high-energy hustle (+4.6) defined this highly efficient outing. He capitalized on secondary actions to score efficiently, easily surpassing his recent production trends. His constant off-ball movement forced the defense into uncomfortable rotations all night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.9

A lack of overall aggression limited his influence, causing his net rating to slip into the negative despite decent hustle numbers. He simply didn't command enough offensive usage to make a dent, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. Passive stretches ultimately outweighed his occasional flashes of energy.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 14.7m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

Lethal floor spacing was the primary catalyst for his massive positive swing. By punishing defensive rotations from deep, he created immense gravity that opened up driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Bricklaying from the perimeter completely undermined his excellent defensive positioning (+5.6). He settled for outside jumpers instead of attacking, resulting in a sharp decline from his recent scoring efficiency. The inability to stretch the floor negated the value of his rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Perfect perimeter execution provided a massive scoring bump, yet his overall impact remained slightly negative due to non-existent hustle metrics. He failed to generate the loose-ball recoveries or extra possessions that typically define his role. The offensive efficiency was a welcome surprise, but the lack of grit limited his total value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1