Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 173 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks Hard 7/20 -2.7
Allen 5/16 -6.6
Gillespie Hard 6/15 +0.1
Williams Open 7/9 +3.2
Goodwin 4/8 -0.5
Dunn Open 1/8 -8.2
O'Neale Hard 4/6 +4.3
Ighodaro Open 5/6 +2.6
Bouyea 2/2 +2.5

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 15/21 +11.7
Reid Hard 2/12 -7.4
Randle 7/11 +3.7
Gobert Open 7/9 +1.6
Hyland Hard 5/8 +5.1
DiVincenzo Hard 1/7 -5.0
McDaniels Hard 1/7 -5.7
Conley 0/5 -5.5
Clark Open 1/2 -0.8
Shannon Jr. Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
MIN
41/90 Field Goals 39/83
45.6% Field Goal % 47.0%
12/33 3-Pointers 11/42
36.4% 3-Point % 26.2%
14/20 Free Throws 16/23
70.0% Free Throw % 69.6%
54.7% True Shooting % 56.4%
53 Total Rebounds 55
14 Offensive 13
29 Defensive 33
26 Assists 26
2.89 Assist/TO Ratio 1.73
9 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 5
2 Blocks 1
20 Fouls 20
50 Points in Paint 40
5 Fast Break Pts 9
24 Points off TOs 14
10 Second Chance Pts 18
26 Bench Points 23
11 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Anthony Edwards
40 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 38.0 MIN
+35.49
2
Mark Williams
22 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 28.6 MIN
+26.52
3
Rudy Gobert
15 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 21.0 MIN
+20.95
4
Royce O'Neale
11 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 32.9 MIN
+16.93
5
Collin Gillespie
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 33.1 MIN
+15.51
6
Julius Randle
21 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 37.3 MIN
+12.7
7
Oso Ighodaro
10 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 19.3 MIN
+11.53
8
Bones Hyland
14 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 15.8 MIN
+8.97
9
Jordan Goodwin
9 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 25.9 MIN
+8.49
10
Jamaree Bouyea
5 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 12.4 MIN
+5.26
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 D. DiVincenzo REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 108–105
Q4 0:03 MISS J. McDaniels 3PT 108–105
Q4 0:06 C. Gillespie Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 108–105
Q4 0:06 C. Gillespie Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 107–105
Q4 0:06 J. McDaniels take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Gillespie 2 FT) 106–105
Q4 0:08 A. Edwards driving Layup (40 PTS) (B. Hyland 3 AST) 106–105
Q4 0:27 A. Edwards REBOUND (Off:0 Def:9) 106–103
Q4 0:30 MISS C. Gillespie 10' turnaround fadeaway Shot 106–103
Q4 0:47 J. Randle loose ball personal FOUL (4 PF) 106–103
Q4 0:47 TEAM defensive REBOUND 106–103
Q4 0:49 MISS N. Reid 3PT 106–103
Q4 1:01 J. McDaniels REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 106–103
Q4 1:03 MISS D. Brooks 14' turnaround fadeaway Shot 106–103
Q4 1:27 J. Randle driving Layup (21 PTS) 106–103
Q4 1:41 N. Reid STEAL (1 STL) 106–101

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 39.9m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Elite point-of-attack defense was completely overshadowed by an offensive performance that actively hindered the team's spacing. Opposing defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, and his inability to punish them on wide-open corner looks stalled multiple possessions. The sheer drop-off from his recent scoring tear created a massive offensive void.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 24.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 38.0m
40
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+37.2

An unstoppable three-level scoring barrage completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and drove a massive impact score. He broke out of a recent slump by aggressively hunting his spots, utilizing a lethal pull-up jumper that defenders simply could not contest. Factor in highly engaged perimeter defense, and this was a true superstar takeover.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 80.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +34.9
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +8.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 37.3m
21
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.5

Highly efficient isolation scoring and excellent playmaking vision drove a strong box score, yet his overall impact remained surprisingly neutral. This discrepancy points to sluggish transition defense and defensive lapses that allowed opponents to immediately answer his offensive production. He bullied mismatches in the half-court, but the value was bled back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.2

A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc severely handicapped the offense and plummeted his overall rating. He repeatedly short-circuited possessions by forcing contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, completely neutralizing his usual floor-spacing gravity. Even respectable hustle metrics couldn't salvage a night where his offensive rhythm was non-existent.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 21.0m
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.6

Absolute mastery of the pick-and-roll dive created a massive positive swing for the offense. He consistently punished drop coverages with perfectly timed rolls, yielding a hyper-efficient scoring night that far exceeded his recent baseline. Combined with his standard rim deterrence, his vertical spacing completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 30.1m
6
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Settling for low-percentage pick-and-pop threes absolutely cratered his offensive impact, negating what was actually a stellar defensive showing. Rather than attacking closeouts, he repeatedly bailed out the defense by launching from deep, resulting in a slew of empty possessions. His relentless hustle on the glass was the only thing keeping his rating from falling even further.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 15.8m
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Instant microwave scoring off the bench provided a crucial jolt to the second-unit offense. He consistently broke down the defensive shell by stepping into deep transition threes, maximizing his touches with excellent efficiency. Surprisingly active perimeter defense ensured his scoring bursts resulted in a net positive for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Mike Conley 15.3m
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.9

A total inability to bend the defense as a scoring threat severely bogged down the half-court offense. Opponents blatantly went under every screen, daring him to shoot, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. Despite generating excellent hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, his offensive zero completely stalled the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 11.5m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Hovered just below neutral during his rotation stint due to a highly passive offensive approach. He largely deferred to primary creators, blending into the background rather than forcing the issue. While he didn't make glaring mistakes, his lack of assertiveness prevented him from making a tangible positive mark on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

A brief cameo appearance yielded a negative impact primarily due to quick defensive miscommunications. He struggled to find the game's rhythm in his limited action, failing to register any meaningful offensive statistics. The short leash prevented him from settling in and correcting his early rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Logged a mere six seconds of floor time, serving strictly as a situational substitution. The microscopic sample size left his impact metrics effectively blank across the board. He was deployed solely for end-of-quarter spacing purposes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.3
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

Aggressive offensive initiation sparked a massive scoring surge compared to his recent baseline, driving a positive overall rating. While his overall conversion rate was pedestrian, his willingness to hunt perimeter shots kept the defense stretched. He stabilized the second-unit offense through decisive penetration and steady point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 32.9m
11
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.4

Elite defensive positioning and relentless activity drove a highly positive two-way performance. He thrived as an offensive connector, punishing late closeouts with hyper-efficient perimeter execution. His ability to anchor the perimeter defense while demanding zero offensive maintenance made him the ultimate glue guy in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Grayson Allen 32.7m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Errant perimeter shooting severely damaged his offensive value, as a barrage of missed threes allowed the defense to pack the paint. His ongoing shooting slump neutralized his gravity, turning him into an offensive liability despite adequate defensive rotations. The sheer volume of wasted possessions completely overshadowed his minor hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 30.8m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

A severe lack of shooting efficiency cratered his overall impact despite a noticeable scoring bump from his recent baseline. Forcing up high-volume, contested perimeter looks created empty possessions that negated his solid defensive metrics. This shot selection pattern ultimately bogged down the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 28.6m
22
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.0

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive impact rating. He overwhelmed his frontcourt matchup by consistently converting high-percentage drop-offs and lobs, maximizing his touches without forcing action. Strong rim-protection metrics perfectly complemented his hyper-efficient offensive explosion.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 84.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +19.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Gritty backcourt pressure and solid defensive metrics kept his overall impact in the green. He generated crucial extra possessions through relentless hustle plays while picking his spots effectively on the offensive end. This was a textbook example of a low-usage guard impacting winning through sheer effort and discipline.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 24.3m
2
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.0

A complete inability to finish plays around the basket tanked his overall effectiveness. He struggled mightily to convert through contact, leading to a string of empty offensive trips that killed momentum. Compounding the offensive struggles, his usually reliable defensive metrics slipped into the negative, making it a distinctly forgettable outing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring -3.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 19.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Pristine shot selection and elite finishing as a roll man drove a highly efficient performance. He consistently punished defensive switches by sealing his man deep in the paint, continuing a reliable trend of high-percentage execution. His fundamental defensive positioning ensured he wasn't giving back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Flawless offensive execution in a brief stint was entirely negated by struggles on the defensive end. Opposing guards targeted him during his rotation minutes, leading to a negative defensive rating that flattened his overall impact. Still, his decisive shot-making provided a much-needed, albeit brief, offensive spark.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +52.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0