Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Sharpe 10/19 +3.2
Avdija Hard 6/18 -0.8
Camara Hard 5/14 +0.8
Clingan 6/7 +5.6
Murray 3/7 -0.3
Williams III Open 4/5 +1.5
Love Hard 1/5 -2.6
Cissoko Hard 0/5 -4.8
Reath Hard 0/1 -0.9

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 7/19 -3.1
Schröder Hard 6/13 +3.0
Raynaud 7/13 +0.4
DeRozan Hard 5/12 -0.5
Clifford Hard 5/11 +1.8
Westbrook Hard 2/10 -5.9
Achiuwa 0/6 -5.7
Cardwell Hard 1/3 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
SAC
35/81 Field Goals 33/87
43.2% Field Goal % 37.9%
11/32 3-Pointers 6/31
34.4% 3-Point % 19.4%
17/25 Free Throws 21/31
68.0% Free Throw % 67.7%
53.3% True Shooting % 46.2%
59 Total Rebounds 60
10 Offensive 18
36 Defensive 32
18 Assists 18
0.90 Assist/TO Ratio 1.00
20 Turnovers 15
12 Steals 14
3 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 19
42 Points in Paint 36
15 Fast Break Pts 7
9 Points off TOs 24
15 Second Chance Pts 18
13 Bench Points 37
13 Largest Lead 1
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
DeMar DeRozan
15 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 34.9 MIN
+19.61
2
Robert Williams III
10 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 17.9 MIN
+17.36
3
Donovan Clingan
14 PTS · 14 REB · 0 AST · 30.1 MIN
+17.01
4
Dennis Schröder
21 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 31.1 MIN
+13.79
5
Maxime Raynaud
17 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 30.5 MIN
+12.08
6
Nique Clifford
12 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.3 MIN
+12.04
7
Shaedon Sharpe
23 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 34.3 MIN
+11.99
8
Toumani Camara
15 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 36.5 MIN
+10.07
9
Deni Avdija
24 PTS · 7 REB · 11 AST · 40.2 MIN
+9.45
10
Russell Westbrook
7 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 30.4 MIN
+9.14
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 D. Avdija REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 98–93
Q4 0:03 MISS D. DeRozan 27' 3PT 98–93
Q4 0:05 D. Schröder REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 98–93
Q4 0:07 MISS K. Murray 25' pullup 3PT 98–93
Q4 0:16 R. Williams III Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 98–93
Q4 0:16 R. Williams III Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 97–93
Q4 0:16 R. Westbrook personal FOUL (3 PF) (Williams III 2 FT) 96–93
Q4 0:16 R. Williams III REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 96–93
Q4 0:18 MISS D. Cardwell Free Throw 2 of 2 96–93
Q4 0:18 D. Cardwell Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 96–93
Q4 0:18 D. Clingan shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Cardwell 2 FT) 96–92
Q4 0:23 R. Westbrook STEAL (4 STL) 96–92
Q4 0:23 T. Camara bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 96–92
Q4 0:24 TEAM defensive REBOUND 96–92
Q4 0:27 MISS K. Murray tip Layup 96–92

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 39.7m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

A disastrous perimeter shooting display completely collapsed the team's floor spacing and tanked his overall impact. Defenders aggressively sagged off him during a pivotal fourth-quarter stretch, daring him to shoot and clogging driving lanes for his teammates. Despite decent baseline metrics, his broken jumper was the defining tactical flaw of the night.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.5

Generated staggering defensive value by consistently blowing up passing lanes and executing flawless weakside digs on driving guards. While his isolation scoring was relatively inefficient, his relentless hustle and veteran positioning disrupted the opponent's primary offensive actions all night. A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections in the third quarter perfectly illustrated how he dominated the game without relying on his jumper.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +11.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 30.5m
17
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Provided a masterclass in high-percentage interior positioning, sealing off defenders early in the shot clock to maintain his hot shooting streak. His robust defensive metrics were driven by textbook verticality at the rim, deterring multiple driving attempts during the second half. This steady, mistake-free execution anchored the frontcourt and delivered a strong positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -11.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
7
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.5

Overcame a truly abysmal shooting performance by transforming into an absolute terror as a point-of-attack defender. He masked his offensive limitations by generating extra possessions through sheer willpower, diving for loose balls and crashing the glass relentlessly. His chaotic energy during a messy second-quarter run completely derailed the opponent's rhythm, salvaging a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Completely abandoned his recent streak of efficient interior play by forcing a series of wild, off-balance floaters in traffic. This sudden regression in shot quality resulted in empty trips that immediately sparked opponent fast breaks. His inability to finish through contact defined a highly damaging, albeit brief, rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Exploded for a massive scoring surge that shattered his recent averages, utilizing lightning-quick changes of pace to collapse the defense. However, his overall impact was heavily suppressed by a tendency to over-dribble late in the shot clock, leading to stagnant possessions. A pattern of trading baskets on the defensive end kept his net value much lower than his raw offensive production suggested.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Delivered a phenomenally balanced two-way performance, seamlessly blending timely off-ball cuts with suffocating perimeter defense. His elite hustle metrics were highlighted by a relentless effort to secure long rebounds and keep offensive possessions alive. He locked down his primary assignment during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch, cementing a highly impactful night.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Served as an impenetrable brick wall in drop coverage, racking up a massive defensive impact without needing to touch the basketball. He consistently deterred rim attempts by utilizing elite verticality and early rotations to shut down driving lanes. This selfless, defense-first approach provided a stabilizing presence that perfectly complemented the team's high-usage guards.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +3.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
Keon Ellis 10.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to attempt a single shot and allowing defenders to freely double-team the primary ball handlers. His inability to navigate screens on the defensive end resulted in several wide-open perimeter looks for the opposition. This pattern of passive, low-energy play led to a swift benching and a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logged a fleeting rotational shift that barely left a footprint on the game's tactical landscape. He executed a few basic dribble hand-offs but was quickly targeted in space by quicker guards on the defensive end. The coaching staff quickly pivoted away from his matchup, resulting in a negligible overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 40.2m
24
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+0.8

Forced the issue as a primary initiator, resulting in a highly inefficient shot profile that dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. While his playmaking volume inflated his baseline metrics, his tendency to drive into heavily contested traffic fueled opponent transition opportunities. This pattern of high-usage, low-efficiency creation ultimately hurt the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Toumani Camara 36.5m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite point-of-attack pressure defined his night, generating massive defensive and hustle values that completely offset his struggles finishing inside the arc. He consistently blew up opponent dribble hand-offs on the perimeter to disrupt their primary actions. That relentless energy salvaged a positive overall impact despite a clunky, inefficient shot profile.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kris Murray 35.6m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Although he nearly doubled his usual scoring output, his overall impact plummeted due to severe struggles in transition containment. His defensive metrics were buoyed by a few timely weakside rotations, but his offensive passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The negative overall score reflects a clear pattern of stalled offensive possessions whenever the ball swung his way.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.3m
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

A heavy volume of self-created midrange jumpers boosted his box metrics, but his overall net impact was surprisingly muted. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts during a sloppy second-quarter stretch, bleeding away the value of his offensive creation. The scoring punch was undeniable, yet his off-ball defensive lapses prevented a truly dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Donovan Clingan 30.1m
14
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.6

Anchored the paint with suffocating drop coverage, leading to a massive defensive rating that dictated the flow of the game. His elite shot selection yielded highly efficient interior finishes, punishing mismatches whenever guards switched onto him. This dominant two-way interior pattern drove one of the highest overall impacts on the roster.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +12.0
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 23.6m
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.9

An absolute offensive black hole whose inability to convert quality looks allowed the defense to aggressively double-team elsewhere. He repeatedly hesitated on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive flow and tanking his total impact. The total lack of scoring gravity made him an easy target for the opposing scheme to exploit all night.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 8.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Completely changed the geometry of the court during his short shifts by serving as an elite lob threat and rim deterrent. His flawless shot selection and vertical spacing generated a massive box impact in under twenty minutes of action. A dominant third-quarter stint of weakside shot-blocking perfectly encapsulated his highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +10.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Caleb Love 9.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Derailed second-unit possessions with a string of heavily contested, early-clock jumpers that failed to draw iron. This erratic shot selection immediately fueled opponent fast breaks, resulting in a steep negative overall impact despite decent hustle metrics. His brief stint was defined by a complete lack of offensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -68.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Barely registered on the game's radar, floating on the perimeter without initiating any meaningful actions or cuts. His passive approach allowed his primary matchup to freely roam as a free safety, dragging his total impact into the negative. The stint was entirely defined by an inability to assert any physical or tactical presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -1.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Struggled to find the speed of the game during a brief rotational cameo, missing a crucial defensive rotation that led to an easy dunk. He hoisted a contested perimeter look rather than moving the ball, contributing to a quick negative swing. The coaching staff pulled him after this short, disjointed stretch of play.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0