Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHX lead OKC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
OKC 2P — 3P —
PHX 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander Hard 8/22 -3.2
Williams 9/13 +5.8
Dort Hard 5/13 +0.3
Holmgren Hard 8/11 +7.1
Mitchell Hard 4/9 +0.7
Caruso 1/4 -2.5
Wiggins 2/3 +0.8
Wallace Hard 1/2 +0.8
Joe Hard 0/2 -1.9
Carlson 0/2 -2.1

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks Hard 8/17 +3.2
Goodwin Hard 9/16 +9.4
Booker Hard 5/11 +2.1
Gillespie Hard 3/10 -2.8
Dunn Hard 3/8 +0.8
O'Neale Hard 1/8 -5.4
Williams Open 3/5 +0.3
Ighodaro Open 2/3 +0.6
Livers Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
OKC
PHX
39/82 Field Goals 35/79
47.6% Field Goal % 44.3%
10/32 3-Pointers 17/43
31.2% 3-Point % 39.5%
17/19 Free Throws 21/29
89.5% Free Throw % 72.4%
58.1% True Shooting % 58.8%
37 Total Rebounds 60
2 Offensive 12
27 Defensive 37
20 Assists 21
2.22 Assist/TO Ratio 1.31
9 Turnovers 15
2 Steals 2
4 Blocks 1
20 Fouls 23
38 Points in Paint 24
2 Fast Break Pts 15
21 Points off TOs 18
9 Second Chance Pts 14
23 Bench Points 43
18 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Chet Holmgren
18 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 32.6 MIN
+21.81
2
Devin Booker
24 PTS · 6 REB · 9 AST · 38.2 MIN
+21.05
3
Jordan Goodwin
26 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 30.8 MIN
+18.56
4
Jalen Williams
23 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 34.5 MIN
+15.17
5
Ajay Mitchell
13 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 27.2 MIN
+9.5
6
Mark Williams
8 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 21.3 MIN
+8.02
7
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
25 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 35.6 MIN
+7.56
8
Ryan Dunn
9 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 20.8 MIN
+7.35
9
Aaron Wiggins
5 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 19.3 MIN
+5.48
10
Luguentz Dort
13 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 26.5 MIN
+3.99
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–108
Q4 0:00 MISS A. Mitchell 24' 3PT 105–108
Q4 0:01 D. Booker 35' 3PT step back (24 PTS) 105–108
Q4 0:08 J. Williams 9' step back Jump Shot (23 PTS) 105–105
Q4 0:14 O. Ighodaro kicked ball VIOLATION 103–105
Q4 0:22 D. Brooks lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (5 TO) 103–105
Q4 0:26 C. Holmgren 13' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (18 PTS) 103–105
Q4 0:26 C. Holmgren REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 101–105
Q4 0:29 MISS S. Gilgeous-Alexander 9' step back Shot 101–105
Q4 0:36 D. Brooks 26' 3PT step back (22 PTS) 101–105
Q4 0:53 D. Brooks REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 101–102
Q4 0:57 MISS J. Williams 25' step back 3PT 101–102
Q4 1:07 L. Dort REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 101–102
Q4 1:10 MISS D. Booker 13' fadeaway Shot 101–102
Q4 1:32 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 101–102

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

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 38.2m
24
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.6

Operated as a masterful floor general, leveraging his scoring gravity to dissect the defense and create high-quality looks for teammates. His elite +23.1 box impact highlights a performance defined by unselfish playmaking rather than just hunting his own shot.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +18.8
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 33.5m
22
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-volume shot attempts yielded decent scoring numbers, but forced offensive possessions ultimately disrupted the team's overall rhythm. His aggressive nature led to a negative net impact, suggesting his defensive physical play didn't fully offset the cost of his inefficient offensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -12.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Royce O'Neale 31.5m
3
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.7

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter completely cratered his offensive value, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. While he battled defensively, the sheer volume of bricked open looks resulted in a devastating -10.1 net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

Errant perimeter shooting plagued his entire stint, as he repeatedly failed to punish the defense for going under screens. Despite showing some resistance at the point of attack defensively, the offensive dead-ends dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 21.3m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Controlled the restricted area with excellent verticality, anchoring the defense to a +4.3 rating during his shift. His disciplined rim-running and shot-altering presence provided a highly efficient spark to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
26
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.8

Caught absolute fire from beyond the arc, single-handedly warping the opponent's defensive scheme with his deep range. That blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a massive +18.1 box score metric and swung the game's momentum entirely in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 23.6m
5
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Looked a step slow in defensive rotations, allowing opponents to exploit gaps in the frontcourt coverage. While he finished the few looks he got around the rim, his inability to string together stops resulted in a damaging -6.7 net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 20.8m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Provided a reliable 3-and-D presence by spacing the floor effectively and maintaining disciplined closeouts on the perimeter. His willingness to take open catch-and-shoot looks kept the offense flowing and secured a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Operated as an offensive ghost during his limited minutes, failing to attempt a single shot or bend the defense. That extreme passivity, combined with a few defensive miscommunications, led to a quick negative swing while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Executed his role perfectly in a micro-stint by knocking down his lone perimeter opportunity. Brought immediate spacing value without making any defensive mistakes, yielding a slight positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
25
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.2

A heavy diet of contested, missed jumpers severely dragged down his overall value, rendering his scoring volume somewhat hollow. Defensive lapses and poor shooting efficiency ultimately pushed his net impact into the red despite carrying the primary offensive load.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 34.5m
23
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.0

Surgical shot selection inside the arc allowed him to dominate offensive possessions without forcing bad looks. His highly efficient scoring profile combined with solid secondary playmaking to yield a robust +8.0 total impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Chet Holmgren 32.6m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.0

Anchored the interior with a massive +9.3 defensive rating, likely altering numerous shots at the rim to stifle the opponent's paint attack. Coupled with hyper-efficient finishing on offense, he posted a dominant two-way performance that dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +7.5
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 26.5m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Relentless energy and loose-ball recoveries defined his night, as evidenced by an elite +8.7 hustle rating. That sheer activity level kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite a high volume of missed perimeter jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 17.9m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Faded into the background during his rotational minutes, failing to leave a tangible mark on either end of the floor. A lack of offensive aggression and minimal defensive disruption ultimately resulted in a negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Provided a massive spark off the bench by generating extra possessions and wreaking havoc in the passing lanes. That tremendous hustle rating (+7.8) amplified his steady offensive execution to produce a highly positive two-way stint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 22.4m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Kept his head above water entirely through grit, using an elite +6.2 hustle metric to offset a completely dormant offensive showing. His ability to blow up actions at the point of attack ensured he remained a net-neutral presence despite struggling to hit shots.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Played within himself offensively but failed to generate enough gravity to positively influence the team's spacing. Despite decent defensive metrics, his passive approach on the wing resulted in a slight negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 10.2m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Completely neutralized by the opposing perimeter defense, failing to find any daylight for his signature outside shot. Without his floor-spacing gravity, his presence actively hindered the offensive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief cameo, missing his few looks and failing to establish an offensive rhythm. However, solid defensive positioning prevented his short stint from becoming a major liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -89.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Maximized a very brief rotational window by taking only high-value shots and maintaining defensive discipline. His mistake-free minutes provided a reliable, stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0