Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 191 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg Hard 7/13 +4.3
Thompson Hard 5/13 +1.2
Washington 7/13 -0.6
Christie Hard 3/12 -3.6
Marshall 4/9 -0.4
Nembhard Hard 4/8 +1.5
Gafford Open 5/7 +1.2
Russell 3/7 0.0
Hardy 2/3 +1.7
Martin Open 0/1 -1.2

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Westbrook Hard 8/16 +4.3
Ellis Hard 8/15 +6.0
Raynaud 9/15 +2.7
Schröder Hard 4/11 -1.1
DeRozan Hard 3/10 -3.2
Clifford Open 3/10 -5.3
Monk 3/9 -1.9
Achiuwa 2/8 -5.1
McDermott Hard 3/6 +2.5
Cardwell Open 2/4 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
SAC
40/87 Field Goals 45/104
46.0% Field Goal % 43.3%
13/27 3-Pointers 17/38
48.1% 3-Point % 44.7%
14/20 Free Throws 6/8
70.0% Free Throw % 75.0%
55.8% True Shooting % 52.5%
61 Total Rebounds 54
11 Offensive 14
40 Defensive 36
23 Assists 32
1.10 Assist/TO Ratio 2.91
19 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 16
8 Blocks 7
11 Fouls 15
46 Points in Paint 42
11 Fast Break Pts 11
11 Points off TOs 28
10 Second Chance Pts 11
38 Bench Points 38
4 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Keon Ellis
21 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 32.3 MIN
+21.36
2
Maxime Raynaud
19 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.0 MIN
+19.91
3
Russell Westbrook
21 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 27.9 MIN
+14.55
4
P.J. Washington
17 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.8 MIN
+13.85
5
Klay Thompson
14 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 25.1 MIN
+13.03
6
DeMar DeRozan
9 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 27.8 MIN
+12.28
7
Dennis Schröder
10 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 20.3 MIN
+11.72
8
Daniel Gafford
11 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 23.0 MIN
+11.55
9
Cooper Flagg
23 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 34.2 MIN
+10.51
10
Precious Achiuwa
5 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 25.3 MIN
+9.56
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 D. Schröder REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 107–113
Q4 0:05 MISS K. Thompson 3PT 107–113
Q4 0:09 D. DeRozan Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 107–113
Q4 0:09 D. DeRozan Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 107–112
Q4 0:09 N. Marshall take personal FOUL (2 PF) (DeRozan 2 FT) 107–111
Q4 0:11 D. DeRozan REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 107–111
Q4 0:11 MISS D. Powell Free Throw 2 of 2 107–111
Q4 0:11 D. Powell Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 107–111
Q4 0:11 M. Raynaud shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Powell 2 FT) 106–111
Q4 0:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 106–111
Q4 0:12 MISS M. Christie tip Layup 106–111
Q4 0:12 M. Christie REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 106–111
Q4 0:13 MISS M. Christie 7' driving Layup 106–111
Q4 0:26 K. Thompson STEAL (1 STL) 106–111
Q4 0:26 R. Westbrook bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 106–111

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Keon Ellis actually won the night
21 points, 1 board, 0 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+15.8), defense (+6.5), and shot-making (+6.1), pushing Net Impact to +14.9.
Scoring +15.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +6.5
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +6.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Max Christie too hard
9 points, 7 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1), pulling Net Impact down to -7.5.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense +0.5
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.9
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Cooper Flagg too hard
23 points, 6 boards, 5 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-12.6) and defense (-1.9) pulled Net Impact down to +4.1.
Turnovers -12.6
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.4
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Precious Achiuwa's value was hiding in plain sight
5 points, 9 boards, 2 assists undersells it. hustle (+11.4), defense (+3.2), and creation (+1.5) pushed his Net Impact to +6.2.
Hustle +11.4
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +3.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.5
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keon Ellis 32.3m
21
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.9

A massive perimeter scoring eruption completely shifted the geometry of the floor and punished drop coverages. His aggressive outside shooting was perfectly paired with suffocating point-of-attack defense to cement a highly positive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.0

An unexpected barrage from beyond the arc drove a massive surge in his base production. However, his final impact was heavily muted, suggesting that hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers or defensive gambles offset much of his scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 27.8m
9
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.7

Uncharacteristic struggles from the midrange severely capped his offensive value and dragged down his efficiency. However, he salvaged a positive overall impact by leaning into his playmaking and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 27.0m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.0

Dominated his matchup with a relentless, highly efficient scoring attack that punished the interior defense. Combined with excellent rim protection, his pristine shot selection fueled one of the most impactful performances of the night.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Clunky interior finishing and forced shots erased the value of his otherwise stellar defensive effort. His inability to convert easy looks around the rim dragged a potentially dominant two-way performance down to a neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Thrived as an energy big by dominating the hustle margins and anchoring the defense. Refused to force bad shots, instead generating immense value through extra possessions and disciplined rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Overcame a rough shooting night by applying constant defensive pressure and orchestrating the offense. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and generate hustle events ensured a strong positive impact despite the clanking jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Poor finishing at the rim was mitigated by a relentless motor on the glass and strong defensive rotations. He managed to stay in the green by generating enough hustle plays to make up for his wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided solid floor spacing by strictly hunting three-pointers, but gave it all back on the defensive end. Opponents easily exploited his defensive limitations, dragging his net impact into the negative despite the perimeter accuracy.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 19.0m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Forced the issue offensively, leading to a slew of empty possessions that derailed the team's momentum. A sharp deviation from his usual scoring efficiency, combined with likely ball-security issues, resulted in a heavily damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 34.2m
23
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.1

Highly efficient perimeter execution was entirely overshadowed by a disastrous pattern of hidden mistakes. The massive gap between his positive base production and cratered overall impact points directly to a slew of costly live-ball turnovers. He essentially gave back every point he generated by fueling opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +19.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S P.J. Washington 33.8m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Constant bricklaying from beyond the arc kept his offensive ceiling firmly capped. He managed to keep his head above water solely through robust defensive rotations and a willingness to generate extra possessions via hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Max Christie 29.9m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.5

Impact absolutely plummeted due to a barrage of forced, low-quality shots that routinely killed offensive momentum. The sheer volume of wasted possessions created a negative ripple effect that his decent perimeter defense couldn't begin to salvage.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniel Gafford 23.0m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Pristine shot selection around the rim and elite defensive anchoring defined this highly positive stint. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his refusal to force bad looks ensured every offensive trip was maximized.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 16.8m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

A sudden surge in offensive aggression was completely undone by severe vulnerabilities at the point of attack. His inability to string together defensive stops allowed opponents to immediately answer his scoring, resulting in a damaging overall shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Passive offensive involvement and a steep drop from his recent scoring averages resulted in a highly detrimental performance. The underlying metrics suggest his touches frequently ended in empty trips or turnovers, dragging his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Perimeter gravity and solid defensive positioning kept him afloat despite a streaky overall shooting night. While he broke out of a recent slump from deep, a high volume of missed two-pointers prevented his net impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Completely abandoned his scoring role to focus entirely on doing the dirty work in the paint. Exceptional hustle and elite defensive positioning drove a highly positive impact, proving his value doesn't require offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.1%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +14.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

Flashes of playmaking were neutralized by defensive inconsistencies and a lack of overall aggression. His impact hovered right around zero because his offensive contributions were perfectly offset by what he surrendered on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Made the most of limited minutes by taking high-quality shots and competing hard on the defensive end. A sharp drop in usage from his recent averages actually benefited the team, as his hyper-efficient approach yielded an excellent net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Operated strictly as a complementary piece during his brief floor time, avoiding mistakes while providing mild rim deterrence. Kept the ball moving without forcing any offensive action, resulting in a perfectly steady, neutral presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the game during a very short stint. A total lack of offensive involvement combined with minor defensive missteps resulted in a slightly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0