Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Avdija 9/23 -5.8
Sharpe 3/16 -12.2
Love 6/13 +0.3
Clingan 9/12 +6.6
Camara Hard 7/11 +6.5
Cissoko Hard 2/6 -1.0
Murray Hard 2/5 +0.2
Rupert Hard 2/5 -0.1
Hansen Open 0/1 -1.4

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Champagnie Hard 8/14 +4.5
Fox 7/14 +1.4
Kornet Open 10/12 +4.3
Harper 2/12 -8.0
Barnes Hard 5/11 -0.2
Castle 5/11 -1.7
Olynyk Hard 2/9 -5.5
Johnson Open 1/6 -5.3
Bryant 0/2 -2.5
Waters III 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
SAS
40/92 Field Goals 40/93
43.5% Field Goal % 43.0%
19/45 3-Pointers 10/31
42.2% 3-Point % 32.3%
16/27 Free Throws 20/23
59.3% Free Throw % 87.0%
55.4% True Shooting % 53.3%
68 Total Rebounds 53
16 Offensive 12
36 Defensive 36
24 Assists 27
2.18 Assist/TO Ratio 4.50
11 Turnovers 6
3 Steals 8
4 Blocks 7
16 Fouls 20
42 Points in Paint 54
10 Fast Break Pts 13
13 Points off TOs 10
26 Second Chance Pts 18
30 Bench Points 18
15 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luke Kornet
23 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 31.1 MIN
+29.19
2
Donovan Clingan
24 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 34.3 MIN
+26.1
3
Deni Avdija
29 PTS · 11 REB · 10 AST · 38.8 MIN
+22.41
4
De'Aaron Fox
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 34.5 MIN
+21.0
5
Julian Champagnie
20 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 33.4 MIN
+19.07
6
Toumani Camara
20 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 35.8 MIN
+13.33
7
Stephon Castle
16 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 36.8 MIN
+12.57
8
Caleb Love
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 27.9 MIN
+9.47
9
Harrison Barnes
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+6.86
10
Keldon Johnson
5 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 23.8 MIN
+6.59
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 S. Cissoko REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 115–110
Q4 0:05 MISS J. Champagnie 28' 3PT 115–110
Q4 0:13 C. Love Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 115–110
Q4 0:13 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–110
Q4 0:13 MISS C. Love Free Throw 1 of 2 114–110
Q4 0:13 L. Kornet personal FOUL (6 PF) (Love 2 FT) 114–110
Q4 0:13 C. Love REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 114–110
Q4 0:14 MISS D. Fox 6' step back Shot 114–110
Q4 0:21 D. Fox REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 114–110
Q4 0:22 MISS C. Love Free Throw 2 of 2 114–110
Q4 0:22 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–110
Q4 0:22 MISS C. Love Free Throw 1 of 2 114–110
Q4 0:22 D. Fox take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Love 2 FT) 114–110
Q4 0:31 C. Love REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 114–110
Q4 0:34 MISS H. Barnes 3PT 114–110

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

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 36.8m
16
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-level playmaking volume was unfortunately offset by a series of live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. He struggled to read the weak-side tag in the pick-and-roll, forcing passes into tight windows that were easily picked off. Despite solid individual defense, his offensive miscues proved too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 34.5m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.0

Pushed the pace relentlessly, turning defensive stops into immediate transition advantages before the defense could set. His high hustle metrics reflect a phenomenal effort fighting over screens and hounding ball-handlers for 94 feet. This aggressive point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.3

Punished defensive rotations all night by relocating perfectly along the perimeter for catch-and-shoot daggers. His outstanding defensive rating was driven by flawless weak-side help and timely digs at the nail that disrupted drives. This two-way execution provided a massive stabilizing presence for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +10.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 31.9m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A string of ill-advised fouls and slow closeouts severely undercut his otherwise efficient scoring night. He routinely got beat off the dribble by quicker wings, forcing the defense into rotation and yielding easy corner looks. The veteran's inability to contain the point of attack proved costly during key opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luke Kornet 31.1m
23
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.5

Completely dominated the painted area through elite positioning and relentless offensive rebounding. He neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack by playing flawless drop coverage, swallowing up drives and altering everything at the rim. This masterclass in interior efficiency and rim deterrence drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense -4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Struggled mightily to find any offensive rhythm, frequently driving wildly into traffic and coughing up possession. His inability to finish through contact allowed the defense to ignore him and overload the strong side. A highly engaged defensive performance fighting through screens was the only thing preventing a much steeper negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 22.9m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

An uncharacteristically frigid shooting night completely stalled the half-court offense, snapping his recent streak of elite efficiency. He forced heavily contested finishes at the rim rather than kicking out to open shooters when the defense collapsed. While his on-ball defense remained stellar, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his net impact down.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 14.5m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Brutal perimeter spacing allowed the opposing center to camp in the lane and blow up the team's driving angles. He kept firing away from deep despite the cold streak, effectively wasting possessions and bailing out the defense. Solid positional awareness on the other end barely kept his overall impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.1

Failed to provide the necessary floor spacing, passing up open looks only to force contested shots late in the clock. His defensive rotations were a half-step slow, leading to a quick barrage of opponent triples. This brief but highly damaging stint forced an early substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.2

Looked entirely out of sync during his brief stint, rushing his offensive reads and clanking his only attempts. He was targeted immediately on switches, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after a disorganized and damaging stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.8m
29
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.8

A heavy diet of forced drives into traffic cratered his interior efficiency, but his elite playmaking kept the offense humming. He dictated the tempo beautifully in the pick-and-roll, routinely finding the roll man to offset the damage of his own missed layups. Strong positional rebounding and active weak-side defense ultimately tipped his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +10.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 35.8m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency was almost entirely wiped out by poor transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers. While his active hands generated solid hustle metrics, he repeatedly gambled in the passing lanes to surrender open corner threes. The impressive scoring volume masked a highly disorganized defensive stint that gave points right back.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 34.3m
24
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.0

Completely overpowered the interior defense, utilizing his massive frame to seal deep in the paint for high-percentage finishes. His sudden offensive eruption anchored the unit, forcing the opponent to collapse and scramble in the half-court. Elite rim deterrence and flawless drop coverage solidified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +15.2
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 28.3m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-22.0

Disastrous shot selection derailed the offense, as he repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock. The sheer volume of empty possessions fueled opponent fast breaks and completely killed the team's momentum. Even a few decent defensive rotations couldn't salvage this highly inefficient and damaging outing.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring -3.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kris Murray 27.2m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive lapses off the ball severely dragged down his overall impact despite highly efficient perimeter shooting. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, bleeding points in the half-court while failing to secure contested rebounds. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely erased the value of his spot-up spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Caleb Love 27.9m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

A sudden scoring surge was undermined by ball-stopping tendencies that stagnated the offensive flow. He hunted his own looks from the perimeter at the expense of running the system, leading to empty possessions that sparked opponent transition runs. Poor closeout discipline on the other end further dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 22.3m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and offensive glass crashing kept his impact afloat despite clunky finishing around the rim. He thrived as a disruptor in the second unit, utilizing his length to blow up dribble handoffs and force resets. This high-motor approach perfectly compensated for his lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 14.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Struggled to navigate screens effectively, consistently dying on picks and forcing teammates into uncomfortable switches. While he showed flashes of active hands in the passing lanes, his off-ball defensive lapses surrendered crucial momentum. The offense simply bogged down when he was tasked with initiating sets, resulting in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 10.7m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Anchored the paint brilliantly during his short stint, using his verticality to alter multiple shots at the rim. He completely shut off the driving lanes, forcing the offense into late-clock bailouts and contested floaters. This defensive discipline generated a highly positive swing without him ever needing to demand the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0