Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker Hard 13/27 +3.4
Gillespie Hard 5/14 -0.9
Brooks Hard 8/11 +8.5
Goodwin Hard 3/8 +0.6
Ighodaro 5/7 +2.3
O'Neale Hard 2/7 -1.6
Dunn 2/6 -1.8
Bouyea Hard 2/5 -0.7
Williams Open 2/3 -0.2

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Butler III 10/21 -0.3
Curry Hard 9/19 +4.0
Podziemski Hard 4/11 -1.6
Post Hard 3/8 -2.2
Richard 6/7 +7.9
Payton II 2/6 -2.0
Melton Hard 0/5 -5.2
Moody Hard 1/4 -1.5
Spencer 1/4 -1.5
Santos 2/3 +1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
GSW
42/88 Field Goals 42/92
47.7% Field Goal % 45.7%
12/35 3-Pointers 17/49
34.3% 3-Point % 34.7%
20/24 Free Throws 18/24
83.3% Free Throw % 75.0%
58.8% True Shooting % 58.0%
44 Total Rebounds 63
9 Offensive 17
25 Defensive 32
23 Assists 29
1.64 Assist/TO Ratio 1.38
14 Turnovers 20
12 Steals 9
6 Blocks 7
24 Fouls 22
44 Points in Paint 40
12 Fast Break Pts 11
24 Points off TOs 15
9 Second Chance Pts 26
31 Bench Points 52
14 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Devin Booker
38 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 33.8 MIN
+31.42
2
Stephen Curry
28 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 35.1 MIN
+19.46
3
Will Richard
20 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 19.2 MIN
+16.49
4
Jimmy Butler III
25 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 34.9 MIN
+16.48
5
Collin Gillespie
16 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 34.8 MIN
+13.91
6
Dillon Brooks
22 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 31.9 MIN
+13.82
7
Mark Williams
4 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 18.1 MIN
+11.68
8
Oso Ighodaro
10 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 29.7 MIN
+10.65
9
Gui Santos
5 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 6.6 MIN
+8.85
10
Jamaree Bouyea
5 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 16.0 MIN
+7.18
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–119
Q4 0:01 MISS D. Booker 40' pullup 3PT 116–119
Q4 0:05 S. Curry driving reverse Layup (28 PTS) (B. Podziemski 6 AST) 116–119
Q4 0:10 C. Gillespie 25' 3PT (16 PTS) (R. O'Neale 2 AST) 116–117
Q4 0:12 S. Curry Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 113–117
Q4 0:12 S. Curry Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 113–116
Q4 0:12 D. Brooks personal FOUL (5 PF) (Curry 2 FT) 113–115
Q4 0:16 B. Podziemski REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 113–115
Q4 0:18 MISS C. Gillespie 3PT 113–115
Q4 0:25 D. Brooks REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 113–115
Q4 0:28 MISS S. Curry 24' pullup 3PT 113–115
Q4 0:50 D. Booker Free Throw 1 of 1 (38 PTS) 113–115
Q4 0:50 T. Jackson-Davis shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Booker 1 FT) 112–115
Q4 0:50 D. Booker driving Layup (37 PTS) 112–115
Q4 0:54 J. Butler III Free Throw 1 of 1 (25 PTS) 110–115

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 Stephen Curry 35.1m
28
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.3

Constant off-ball movement and immense gravitational pull on the defense drove a highly positive overall impact. He paired his typical perimeter shot-making with surprising hustle metrics to generate crucial extra possessions. The defense was forced to overreact to his every step, opening up the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +7.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.6

Heavy offensive usage drove a strong box score, but the overall impact was muted by average defensive and hustle metrics. He settled for several contested jumpers, which capped his efficiency and limited his net rating. A steady diet of isolation plays kept the offense afloat but failed to generate a significant overall advantage.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Quinten Post 26.4m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Errant perimeter shooting completely tanked his overall impact rating. While he provided solid defensive resistance inside, bricking multiple outside looks killed offensive momentum. Opponents actively dared him to shoot from deep, which severely compromised the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moses Moody 17.6m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.7

A drastic drop-off in scoring aggression and poor defensive execution led to a negative net rating. He struggled to stay in front of his assignments, bleeding value on the perimeter. Despite showing some flashes of hustle, his inability to replicate his recent offensive outbursts left a noticeable void.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Elite defensive positioning defined his brief stint on the floor, yielding a highly positive impact despite minimal minutes. He didn't need to look for his shot, instead focusing entirely on blowing up opponent pick-and-roll actions. His ability to quarterback the defense instantly stabilized the unit while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily penalized his net impact score. He forced too many contested threes instead of keeping the ball moving, which repeatedly stalled out the offense. The severe drop in his usual scoring efficiency completely overshadowed his passable defensive efforts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Will Richard 19.2m
20
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Flawless perimeter shooting sparked an incredible offensive explosion that defined his massive positive impact. He punished defensive lapses by hitting every three-pointer he took, vastly outperforming his usual scoring output. This level of hyper-efficient shot-making completely erased his minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 114.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Point-of-attack defensive disruption was the primary engine behind his positive rating. He sacrificed his own offensive rhythm to hound ball-handlers and blow up passing lanes. Even with a sharp decline in finishing efficiency, his relentless defensive energy changed the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Perfect efficiency around the rim and solid defensive positioning couldn't quite push him into positive territory. He operated well as a lob threat but lacked the sheer volume to make a major dent in the overall game flow. A lack of high-impact hustle plays ultimately kept his net rating slightly below zero.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.9

A complete inability to knock down shots torpedoed his value despite fantastic hustle metrics. Missing every single field goal attempt created empty possessions that the team simply couldn't afford. His high-energy loose ball recoveries were admirable but not enough to offset the offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 15.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Pat Spencer 10.3m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Missed opportunities on offense negated a fundamentally sound defensive stint. He struggled to convert his looks, leading to a dip in his usual production and a slightly negative net score. His inability to capitalize on open space allowed the opposing defense to key in on primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 6.6m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Maximized a very brief appearance by combining hyper-efficient finishing with stout defensive execution. Though his scoring volume dropped significantly from recent highs, his shot selection remained absolutely impeccable. He provided an immediate two-way spark off the bench, swinging the momentum in just a handful of possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.1

Inefficient volume shooting ultimately neutralized his otherwise solid defensive contributions. While he doubled his usual offensive output, the sheer number of missed jumpers dragged his net impact slightly below zero. His aggressive point-of-attack defense kept him viable during those extended cold shooting stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 33.9m
38
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+31.5

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, pairing a massive scoring surge with an elite +10.7 defensive rating. He aggressively hunted mismatches to generate immense offensive pressure while remaining highly engaged on the other end of the floor. The sheer volume of his shot creation completely overwhelmed the defensive coverages thrown his way.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 41.0%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +27.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +7.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 31.9m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Doubling his usual scoring output on excellent shot selection drove a massive surge in his offensive impact. High-activity hustle plays further boosted his value, masking a slightly negative defensive rating. His perimeter shot-making completely shifted the momentum when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +19.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 29.7m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.6

Poor perimeter shot selection and bricked threes severely dragged down his overall net impact. Despite offering solid defensive resistance and decent hustle metrics, the offensive cratering was too much to overcome. His inability to punish sagging defenders crippled the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 18.1m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Defensive anchoring defined this highly efficient stint, generating a massive +8.1 defensive impact score. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, his rim protection and high-energy hustle plays more than compensated. He proved that dominating the paint defensively can entirely offset a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 29.7m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Continuing a streak of highly efficient finishing, pristine shot selection inside the paint drove his strong box score rating. However, a lack of overwhelming defensive or hustle stats kept his overall net impact relatively modest. He played within his role perfectly, capitalizing on dump-off passes and rolling hard to the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Elite hustle metrics salvaged a relatively quiet shooting night to keep his overall impact in the green. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort, making up for a lack of interior finishing. His willingness to do the dirty work on the margins defined his value in this rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 20.4m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

A lack of tangible impact across all phases of the game resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm, forcing contested looks that derailed the team's half-court execution. Without disruptive defensive plays or hustle stats to fall back on, his minutes were largely empty.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Smothering perimeter defense was the primary catalyst for his positive impact in limited minutes. He disrupted passing lanes and applied constant ball pressure, generating a stellar +7.0 defensive rating. This defensive intensity perfectly complemented a slight uptick in his situational scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1