Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sengun 8/20 -5.6
Durant Hard 9/18 +5.7
Thompson Open 11/17 +2.7
Smith Jr. 4/13 -4.5
Holiday Hard 1/7 -4.1
Sheppard Hard 2/4 +1.3
Finney-Smith 1/3 -1.4
Okogie Hard 0/2 -2.0

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

DeRozan Hard 8/13 +4.8
Westbrook Hard 6/12 +3.5
Monk Hard 6/12 +2.1
LaVine Hard 5/11 +2.4
Cardwell Open 4/11 -4.8
Raynaud 6/10 +2.0
Clifford 4/9 -1.3
Achiuwa 4/7 +0.5
Eubanks 1/6 -4.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
SAC
36/84 Field Goals 44/91
42.9% Field Goal % 48.4%
7/30 3-Pointers 8/23
23.3% 3-Point % 34.8%
19/29 Free Throws 15/20
65.5% Free Throw % 75.0%
50.6% True Shooting % 55.6%
54 Total Rebounds 57
19 Offensive 18
25 Defensive 27
23 Assists 25
1.77 Assist/TO Ratio 2.50
11 Turnovers 9
4 Steals 4
5 Blocks 1
16 Fouls 22
52 Points in Paint 50
12 Fast Break Pts 7
10 Points off TOs 18
18 Second Chance Pts 29
13 Bench Points 34
4 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Amen Thompson
31 PTS · 13 REB · 6 AST · 41.2 MIN
+24.64
2
DeMar DeRozan
22 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 37.0 MIN
+20.93
3
Precious Achiuwa
10 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 38.9 MIN
+16.57
4
Alperen Sengun
19 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 35.4 MIN
+15.84
5
Kevin Durant
23 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 38.2 MIN
+15.49
6
Russell Westbrook
15 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 33.8 MIN
+14.45
7
Malik Monk
15 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 26.1 MIN
+12.22
8
Maxime Raynaud
12 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 20.2 MIN
+10.01
9
Dylan Cardwell
9 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 18.8 MIN
+7.29
10
Zach LaVine
18 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.8 MIN
+5.03
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 SAC shot clock Team TURNOVER 98–111
Q4 0:36 K. Durant 26' 3PT (23 PTS) (A. Thompson 6 AST) 98–111
Q4 0:43 M. Raynaud turnaround Hook (12 PTS) (R. Westbrook 10 AST) 95–111
Q4 1:00 M. Raynaud REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 95–109
Q4 1:02 MISS A. Sengun Free Throw 2 of 2 95–109
Q4 1:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–109
Q4 1:02 MISS A. Sengun Free Throw 1 of 2 95–109
Q4 1:02 M. Raynaud shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Sengun 2 FT) 95–109
Q4 1:06 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–109
Q4 1:06 M. Monk BLOCK (1 BLK) 95–109
Q4 1:06 MISS J. Smith Jr. Layup - blocked 95–109
Q4 1:07 A. Sengun REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 95–109
Q4 1:10 MISS A. Sengun 25' 3PT 95–109
Q4 1:18 M. Raynaud floating Jump Shot (10 PTS) (P. Achiuwa 3 AST) 95–109
Q4 1:19 P. Achiuwa STEAL (3 STL) 95–107

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

SAC Sacramento Kings
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.5

Anchored the frontcourt with dominant rim protection and switchability (+7.6 defense), completely erasing opponents in the paint. Though his perimeter jumper abandoned him, his relentless activity on the glass and loose balls (+4.8 hustle) sustained his value. The defensive masterclass easily overshadowed a dip in his recent scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +7.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 37.0m
22
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.6

Picked apart the defensive coverage with surgical precision in the midrange, generating high-quality looks without forcing the issue. His surprisingly active hands in the passing lanes (+4.6 hustle) created crucial transition opportunities. A masterclass in pacing and exploiting defensive mismatches in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.0

Reckless decision-making and live-ball turnovers undermined an otherwise surprisingly efficient shooting night. While he brought excellent point-of-attack pressure (+2.8 defense), his erratic pacing in transition frequently killed offensive momentum. The chaotic playmaking giveth, but the unforced errors taketh away.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zach LaVine 27.8m
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely negated his perimeter shotmaking. Opposing guards consistently targeted his poor screen navigation and late closeouts, turning him into a massive liability in the half-court. The scoring flash couldn't hide the structural damage he caused to the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 20.2m
12
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Punished smaller defenders with excellent footwork and soft touch around the basket. He maximized his limited minutes by sealing off driving lanes and converting high-percentage interior looks. A highly disciplined offensive shift that kept the second unit's momentum rolling.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +9.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 26.1m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Shredded drop coverages with decisive drives and timely perimeter shotmaking, providing a massive spark off the bench. Surprisingly, his biggest impact came on the defensive end (+5.2), where he fought through screens and contained dribble penetration beautifully. A complete two-way performance that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Elite energy and deflections (+4.8 hustle) were dragged down by poor shot selection from beyond the arc. He consistently disrupted the opponent's passing lanes, but his inability to convert open perimeter looks cramped the half-court spacing. A classic case of high motor being offset by offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Generated massive second-chance opportunities through sheer willpower on the offensive glass, masking his poor finishing around the rim. He struggled mightily with pick-and-roll coverages (-1.7 defense), often finding himself in no-man's land. However, the brute-force extra possessions he created ultimately tipped the scales in his favor.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +13.0
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Rushed his looks in the paint, blowing multiple point-blank finishes that derailed offensive possessions. He fought hard for positioning and loose balls (+2.9 hustle), but the interior bricklaying made him an offensive black hole during his brief stint. The lack of touch around the basket was glaring.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 6.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

A completely invisible shift where he failed to register a single shot attempt, breaking a string of aggressive offensive outings. He floated on the perimeter and got targeted on defensive switches, leading to a quick hook from the coaching staff. The lack of assertiveness made it a wasted rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.2m
31
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite finishing drove a massive performance that shattered his recent scoring averages. He weaponized his athleticism in transition and the half-court, generating high-quality looks without needing a three-point shot. His defensive versatility perfectly complemented an unstoppable downhill offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +13.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -9.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kevin Durant 38.2m
23
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.5

High-volume shotmaking kept the offense afloat, but hidden bleed severely capped his overall value. Defensive apathy and likely live-ball turnovers erased almost all of his massive box score contribution. The scoring efficiency masked a surprisingly hollow floor game.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 35.4m
19
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.6

An uncharacteristically inefficient night around the rim snapped his streak of hyper-efficient performances. While his defensive positioning and rim deterrence (+5.8) salvaged his overall impact, forcing contested looks in the paint dragged down his usual offensive gravity. He settled too often rather than finding the open man.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Clanking perimeter shots and forcing bad looks completely derailed his offensive rhythm, snapping a solid five-game scoring stretch. Despite elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays (+5.2), his inability to space the floor proved too costly. The offensive cratering outweighed his lockdown effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 31.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Holiday 28.3m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Perimeter bricklaying completely neutralized his value as a floor spacer. He generated excellent defensive pressure and loose-ball recoveries (+5.3 hustle), but missing wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities crippled the half-court offense. The defensive peskiness couldn't hide the offensive zero.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 23.8m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Complete lack of offensive aggression allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. Though he provided his usual physical screen-setting, his immobility in drop coverage was likely exploited by opposing guards. The total zero in shot attempts made the offense play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Continued a brutal stretch of perimeter shooting, failing to punish defensive closeouts. While he maintained structural integrity on the defensive end (+1.5), his inability to stretch the floor allowed help defenders to sag into the driving lanes. The lack of offensive gravity severely capped his rotational value.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Faded into the background offensively, showing uncharacteristic passivity compared to his recent aggressive scoring stretch. He chipped in with timely deflections (+2.4 hustle), but his inability to stay in front of his man on the perimeter (-0.6 defense) limited his overall effectiveness. A highly muted performance from a usually dynamic sparkplug.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A brief, chaotic stint highlighted by rushed offensive decisions and empty possessions. He tried to inject energy but ended up disrupting the team's spacing and flow. The defensive intensity was present, but the offensive execution was entirely absent.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0