Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead OKC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
OKC 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 180 attempts

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 12/26 -0.5
Williams 6/16 -2.9
Dort Hard 3/12 -3.2
Mitchell 5/10 -0.6
Holmgren Open 4/9 -2.7
Caruso Hard 2/7 -3.0
Joe Hard 2/5 +0.7
Wallace 0/3 -3.6
Hartenstein Open 0/2 -2.3
Williams Hard 0/2 -2.3

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 9/20 -0.2
Randle 3/15 -10.4
McDaniels 4/13 -5.5
DiVincenzo Hard 5/12 +2.2
Reid 5/10 -1.3
Hyland Hard 4/7 +5.1
Gobert Open 3/7 -3.3
Dillingham 0/4 -4.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
OKC
MIN
34/92 Field Goals 33/88
37.0% Field Goal % 37.5%
11/39 3-Pointers 13/37
28.2% 3-Point % 35.1%
28/30 Free Throws 33/47
93.3% Free Throw % 70.2%
50.9% True Shooting % 51.5%
60 Total Rebounds 71
13 Offensive 18
39 Defensive 39
16 Assists 20
1.33 Assist/TO Ratio 1.54
11 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 8
10 Blocks 6
30 Fouls 24
40 Points in Paint 34
9 Fast Break Pts 4
21 Points off TOs 15
18 Second Chance Pts 29
29 Bench Points 30
12 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
35 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 37.0 MIN
+26.96
2
Anthony Edwards
26 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 40.8 MIN
+23.52
3
Naz Reid
15 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.6 MIN
+16.98
4
Bones Hyland
13 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 15.7 MIN
+14.13
5
Chet Holmgren
14 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 24.9 MIN
+11.91
6
Alex Caruso
7 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 22.5 MIN
+8.96
7
Ajay Mitchell
14 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 22.9 MIN
+8.71
8
Isaiah Joe
6 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 12.9 MIN
+8.41
9
Julius Randle
19 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 32.1 MIN
+8.14
10
Jalen Williams
17 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 31.5 MIN
+6.96
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 107–112
Q4 0:00 OKC Heave 107–112
Q4 0:01 J. McDaniels Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS) 107–112
Q4 0:01 J. McDaniels Free Throw 1 of 2 (12 PTS) 107–111
Q4 0:01 S. Gilgeous-Alexander take personal FOUL (3 PF) (McDaniels 2 FT) 107–110
Q4 0:01 A. Edwards STEAL (3 STL) 107–110
Q4 0:01 S. Gilgeous-Alexander lost ball TURNOVER (3 TO) 107–110
Q4 0:11 J. Randle Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 107–110
Q4 0:11 J. Randle Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 107–109
Q4 0:11 J. Williams take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Randle 2 FT) 107–108
Q4 0:25 A. Edwards REBOUND (Off:1 Def:11) 107–108
Q4 0:28 MISS J. Williams 24' 3PT 107–108
Q4 0:31 A. Caruso REBOUND (Off:2 Def:10) 107–108
Q4 0:32 A. Edwards BLOCK (2 BLK) 107–108
Q4 0:32 MISS S. Gilgeous-Alexander driving Layup - blocked 107–108

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 Anthony Edwards 40.8m
26
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.7

A massive bounce-back performance was anchored by an absolutely suffocating defensive impact. He completely locked up his primary assignment on the perimeter, turning deflections into immediate downhill transition attacks. This two-way dominance dictated the terms of engagement all night, snapping his recent slump with aggressive, high-value shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 25.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +7.5
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaden McDaniels 37.0m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Clunky offensive execution and a barrage of missed jumpers severely punished his overall impact despite excellent hustle metrics. He allowed the defense to off-help by settling for contested long twos instead of pressuring the rim. While his length disrupted passing lanes, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team's momentum down.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Heavy reliance on the three-ball yielded mixed results, ultimately dragging his net impact down due to missed assignments in transition. While his floor-spacing provided necessary gravity, he gave those points right back by getting caught ball-watching on defensive rotations. The volume of long misses frequently sparked long rebounds and odd-man rushes for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 33.1m
9
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Strong rim protection wasn't enough to offset the negative impact of his offensive limitations and spacing issues. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll gravity by tagging early and daring the guards to make skip passes. The inability to punish smaller defenders on switches ultimately stalled the offense and pushed his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +17.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 32.1m
19
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Abysmal shooting efficiency from the floor completely undermined his ability to generate positive value. He repeatedly forced the issue into crowded paint coverage, resulting in empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The playmaking and physical volume artificially inflated his box score, masking just how damaging his shot selection was to the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 12/16 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.6m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Dominant interior defense and relentless energy around the basket drove a highly positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He abandoned the struggling perimeter shot to attack closeouts aggressively, finishing through contact at the rim. This tactical shift, combined with exceptional weak-side shot contests, completely stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Bones Hyland 15.7m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency and surprising defensive engagement fueled a massive net rating spike in limited minutes. He single-handedly tilted the momentum during a crucial second-half stretch by punishing drop coverages with deep pull-up triples. Staying disciplined within the scheme rather than forcing wild isolations maximized his offensive burst.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.6

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to convert in the paint cratered his net impact during his time on the floor. He repeatedly drove into congested areas, resulting in wild misses that ignited opponent fast breaks. The complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

A lack of offensive assertiveness in his brief stint resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. He floated on the perimeter without pressuring the rim or generating any defensive rotations. Failing to leave a tangible imprint on the game flow rendered his minutes largely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
35
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+26.5

Unstoppable isolation scoring and elite defensive playmaking resulted in a dominant total impact. He repeatedly punished drop coverage with his lethal midrange deceleration, keeping the defense constantly off-balance. The sheer gravity of his drives collapsed the opposing shell, masking the slight dip in his usual shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 31.5m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless off-ball movement generated looks, but failing to finish through contact ultimately capped his overall ceiling. The sheer volume of missed two-pointers negated his otherwise stellar perimeter disruption, dragging his total impact into the slight negative.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Luguentz Dort 28.8m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A disastrous shot selection profile fueled a severe negative net impact, driven by forcing heavily contested triples early in the clock. His usually stout point-of-attack defense also slipped into the red, compounding the damage from his bricked jumpers. Settling for bail-out perimeter looks instead of attacking closeouts derailed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Total offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating, completely offsetting a dominant defensive showing. Opponents blatantly ignored him in the half-court, packing the paint and stalling OKC's driving lanes. While his positional screen-setting was solid, playing 4-on-5 on the scoring end proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 24.9m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Elite rim deterrence and timely rotations drove a massive positive impact. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters and kick-outs. This disciplined verticality on defense allowed OKC to dictate the tempo without needing him to force offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Phenomenal defensive metrics and relentless hustle couldn't overcome the severe drag of a completely dormant offensive showing. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to aggressively sag into the paint. This hesitation to punish rotations ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact despite his lockdown perimeter work.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Efficient secondary creation drove a solid box score impact, though defensive lapses nearly washed out his offensive contributions. He expertly navigated high pick-and-rolls during the second-quarter rotation, consistently finding the soft spots in the midrange. However, getting caught on screens and losing his man off the ball kept his overall net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 22.5m
7
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

High-level defensive disruption and elite positional rebounding salvaged a positive impact despite poor shooting efficiency. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack, generating transition opportunities through sheer hustle. The offensive struggles were easily masked by his ability to secure extra possessions and dictate the physical tone.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +14.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 12.9m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Smart spacing and timely floor-stretching yielded a positive impact despite a significant drop in his usual scoring output. His mere presence on the perimeter drew defenders out of the strong side, opening up crucial driving lanes for the primary creators. Remaining disciplined within the offensive flow ensured he added value without commanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A brief, scoreless stint yielded a negative impact due to empty offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks. He provided a slight defensive bump by executing switches cleanly, but failed to generate any gravity on the other end. The inability to capitalize on limited touches quickly relegated him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0