Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 174 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Bridges Hard 6/20 -4.8
Towns 5/14 -3.0
McBride Hard 4/14 -3.7
Anunoby Hard 5/13 -3.2
Clarkson Hard 5/11 0.0
Kolek Hard 3/9 -1.3
Hart Hard 4/7 +3.0
Yabusele Hard 1/5 -3.5
Robinson Open 3/3 +1.8
Brunson Hard 2/3 +1.4

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

DeRozan Hard 7/16 +2.1
LaVine Hard 8/14 +6.5
Achiuwa 7/14 +0.8
Westbrook Hard 6/13 +0.9
Monk Hard 2/7 -2.7
Raynaud Hard 4/6 +2.8
Cardwell Hard 1/2 +0.3
Clifford Hard 0/1 -0.9
Ellis Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
SAC
39/100 Field Goals 35/74
39.0% Field Goal % 47.3%
8/41 3-Pointers 10/27
19.5% 3-Point % 37.0%
15/23 Free Throws 32/38
65.2% Free Throw % 84.2%
45.9% True Shooting % 61.7%
56 Total Rebounds 58
16 Offensive 9
29 Defensive 39
23 Assists 23
2.56 Assist/TO Ratio 1.35
9 Turnovers 15
11 Steals 4
6 Blocks 6
24 Fouls 21
50 Points in Paint 34
16 Fast Break Pts 13
12 Points off TOs 13
20 Second Chance Pts 8
40 Bench Points 11
4 Largest Lead 25
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Precious Achiuwa
20 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 38.6 MIN
+24.07
2
DeMar DeRozan
27 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 41.0 MIN
+21.91
3
Mitchell Robinson
8 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 19.1 MIN
+17.0
4
Mikal Bridges
19 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 35.8 MIN
+14.72
5
Jordan Clarkson
11 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 23.1 MIN
+13.14
6
Zach LaVine
25 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 36.2 MIN
+13.09
7
Karl-Anthony Towns
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 33.3 MIN
+9.42
8
Russell Westbrook
19 PTS · 6 REB · 11 AST · 39.2 MIN
+9.37
9
Tyler Kolek
7 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 23.5 MIN
+8.0
10
Dylan Cardwell
2 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 21.4 MIN
+7.23
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 M. Diawara lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 101–112
Q4 0:25 R. Westbrook 21' pullup Jump Shot (19 PTS) (P. Achiuwa 2 AST) 101–112
Q4 0:48 G. Yabusele cutting Layup (2 PTS) (T. Kolek 5 AST) 101–110
Q4 0:55 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 99–110
Q4 0:55 MISS P. Achiuwa 26' 3PT 99–110
Q4 1:21 T. Kolek 25' 3PT running pullup (7 PTS) 99–110
Q4 1:27 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 96–110
Q4 1:28 MISS Z. LaVine 3PT 96–110
Q4 1:48 A. Hukporti 8' driving floating Jump Shot (2 PTS) (T. Kolek 4 AST) 96–110
Q4 1:55 R. Westbrook 17' fadeaway Jump Shot (17 PTS) 94–110
Q4 2:13 R. Westbrook REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 94–108
Q4 2:14 MISS G. Yabusele 3PT 94–108
Q4 2:16 M. Diawara REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 94–108
Q4 2:20 MISS G. Yabusele 3PT 94–108
Q4 2:33 M. Diawara REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 94–108

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
Precious Achiuwa actually won the night
20 points, 14 boards, 2 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+13.6), hustle (+12.9), and defense (+5.4), pushing Net Impact to +23.1.
Scoring +13.6
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +12.9
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +5.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
hidden value
Mitchell Robinson's value was hiding in plain sight
8 points, 11 boards, 0 assists undersells it. hustle (+14.0), scoring (+7.0), and creation (+1.5) pushed his Net Impact to +12.9.
Hustle +14.0
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Scoring +7.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Creation +1.5
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Russell Westbrook too hard
19 points, 6 boards, 11 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-2.2) pulled Net Impact down to +1.2.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -2.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.9
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Jordan Clarkson's value was hiding in plain sight
11 points, 3 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+6.7), defense (+4.9), and shot-making (+3.3) pushed his Net Impact to +6.7.
Scoring +6.7
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +3.3
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 41.0m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.1

Masterful foul-drawing and methodical half-court orchestration fueled a highly productive offensive showing. He compensated for mediocre shooting from the floor by relentlessly attacking angles and living at the charity stripe. His stabilizing veteran presence in the mid-range dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.2

A classic high-usage, high-chaos outing where gaudy playmaking numbers were entirely undone by reckless decision-making. Errant passes and out-of-control drives fueled opponent transition opportunities, tanking his overall impact score. The sheer volume of his offensive initiation ultimately yielded diminishing returns due to the accompanying mistakes.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
20
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.1

An absolute wrecking ball on the defensive end, he completely suffocated the opposition's frontcourt to drive a massive positive rating. Coupling that elite rim protection with highly efficient floor-spacing made him the most impactful player on the court. His relentless energy on the glass cemented a truly dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +12.9
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 36.2m
25
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.0

Blistering perimeter shot-making masked a performance that actually hurt the team's bottom line. Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his man gave back nearly everything he generated on the offensive end. The scoring volume was flashy, but the underlying execution lacked the necessary two-way resistance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 26.6m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite highly efficient finishing around the basket, his overall influence slipped into the negative due to hidden mistakes. Costly turnovers or slow defensive rotations likely bled points during his shifts, undermining his clean shooting splits. He struggled to match the physical intensity of his matchups when operating outside the painted area.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Proved that scoring isn't required to heavily influence winning basketball. He anchored the second unit with impeccable defensive positioning and physical screen-setting, creating massive hidden value. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured his team won his minutes decisively.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Malik Monk 19.2m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Stagnant offensive flow and a series of forced, contested jumpers derailed his stint off the bench. Without his usual burst to the rim, he settled for low-percentage looks that bailed out the defense. His inability to bend the opposing scheme resulted in a distinctly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.1

An absolute offensive void during his minutes, completely crippling the team's spacing and flow. Defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, turning every possession into a 4-on-5 uphill battle. The catastrophic impact score perfectly reflects a player who was actively detrimental to the offensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 4.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Struggled to find the game's rhythm during a disjointed and brief rotation appearance. A blown defensive assignment and a rushed perimeter attempt quickly landed him in the coach's doghouse. He was a net negative before he could even break a sweat.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 35.8m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.9

Phenomenal two-way activity completely overshadowed a ghastly perimeter shooting performance. He generated massive value through perimeter containment and relentless off-ball tracking, ensuring his minutes were highly profitable. The sheer volume of his defensive disruptions erased the damage of his brick-heavy shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite rim deterrence and active interior rotations kept his head above water on a night where his offensive touch completely abandoned him. Clanking heavily contested looks inside the arc cratered his usual scoring gravity. He essentially transformed into a pure defensive anchor to salvage a neutral impact rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 31.8m
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite generating immense value through loose-ball recoveries and transition hustle, his overall impact plummeted into the red. Hidden mistakes, likely a string of live-ball turnovers or blown coverages in the half-court, completely negated his efficient shot profile. His relentless motor couldn't mask the execution errors during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 27.4m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc torpedoed his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall rating. While he provided his usual physical resistance on the wing, the inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. Forced jumpers early in the shot clock ultimately outweighed his solid baseline production.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 5.0m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

An abbreviated stint cut short any chance to establish his usual offensive rhythm. He managed to find the bottom of the net on a couple of early drives, but the microscopic sample size left his overall footprint slightly negative. The lack of court time defined this outing entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -97.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Reckless offensive sequencing and a barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers severely damaged his team's momentum. Although he found ways to contribute on the glass and as a facilitator, his inability to convert efficiently bled points in transition. The massive negative impact score reflects a player shooting his team out of offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 23.5m
7
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Inefficient finishing in the paint and a handful of forced passes dragged his overall metrics into the red. While he successfully initiated the offense at times, his inability to punish drop coverage with his jumper allowed defenders to sag off. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the half-court execution during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Surprisingly stout point-of-attack resistance elevated what was otherwise a standard scoring punch off the bench. He didn't just hunt shots; he actively disrupted passing lanes and fought through screens to generate stops. This two-way engagement turned a modest offensive night into a highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.9

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a staggering positive rating in limited minutes. He feasted on second-chance opportunities, converting every look around the rim while anchoring the interior defense. This performance was a masterclass in maximizing value through elite role execution and physical imposition.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +14.0
Defense -1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Trigger-happy tendencies in a very limited window completely derailed his stint on the floor. Firing up multiple errant triples in under six minutes killed offensive possessions and led to easy run-outs for the opposition. His brief appearance was defined by rushed decisions rather than playing within the flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Logged a purely cardio session during his brief time on the floor. He generated zero tangible production across any category, resulting in a slight negative drag on the lineup. There simply wasn't enough time or involvement to alter the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.5
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -0.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Capitalized on a microscopic stint by converting his only look at the basket. His brief appearance was clean and mistake-free, resulting in a slight positive bump to his metrics. He did exactly what was asked in a mop-up role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
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
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Failed to leave a positive mark during a fleeting rotation appearance. A couple of empty possessions and missed assignments quickly dropped his rating into negative territory. The game flow completely bypassed him during his brief time on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1