Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Allen Hard 11/25 +7.5
Brooks Hard 4/16 -4.1
O'Neale Hard 4/11 +0.4
Gillespie Hard 6/10 +7.8
Ighodaro 4/8 0.0
Goodwin 3/8 -1.9
Dunn Hard 2/4 +1.1
Williams Open 2/4 -0.8
Livers Hard 0/1 -1.1

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 3/16 -9.8
Duren Open 8/13 +1.2
Robinson Hard 7/12 +6.8
Harris 6/11 +0.4
Ivey Hard 6/8 +8.1
Holland II 3/6 -1.1
Thompson Open 2/6 -3.0
Green Hard 1/5 -2.1
Stewart Hard 0/2 -1.8
Jenkins Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
DET
36/87 Field Goals 38/81
41.4% Field Goal % 46.9%
17/46 3-Pointers 9/32
37.0% 3-Point % 28.1%
16/25 Free Throws 23/37
64.0% Free Throw % 62.2%
53.6% True Shooting % 55.5%
55 Total Rebounds 64
9 Offensive 14
32 Defensive 40
21 Assists 25
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
13 Turnovers 17
14 Steals 10
9 Blocks 7
25 Fouls 15
30 Points in Paint 44
15 Fast Break Pts 9
19 Points off TOs 17
12 Second Chance Pts 20
22 Bench Points 42
16 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tobias Harris
16 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 28.5 MIN
+28.43
2
Jalen Duren
16 PTS · 18 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+20.44
3
Grayson Allen
33 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 30.6 MIN
+19.12
4
Oso Ighodaro
10 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 25.6 MIN
+18.18
5
Collin Gillespie
18 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 36.3 MIN
+13.78
6
Duncan Robinson
19 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 27.0 MIN
+13.47
7
Jaden Ivey
15 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.0 MIN
+11.42
8
Jordan Goodwin
7 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 31.6 MIN
+11.03
9
Daniss Jenkins
5 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 6.2 MIN
+8.95
10
Mark Williams
5 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 22.4 MIN
+8.86
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–108
Q4 0:00 MISS G. Allen 26' turnaround bank 3PT 105–108
Q4 0:02 D. Robinson Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 105–108
Q4 0:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–107
Q4 0:02 MISS D. Robinson Free Throw 1 of 2 105–107
Q4 0:02 J. Goodwin personal FOUL (5 PF) (Robinson 2 FT) 105–107
Q4 0:03 G. Allen 27' 3PT step back (33 PTS) (R. O'Neale 7 AST) 105–107
Q4 0:06 M. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 102–107
Q4 0:07 MISS R. Holland II Free Throw 2 of 2 102–107
Q4 0:07 TEAM offensive REBOUND 102–107
Q4 0:07 MISS R. Holland II Free Throw 1 of 2 102–107
Q4 0:07 J. Goodwin take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Holland II 2 FT) 102–107
Q4 0:07 R. Holland II REBOUND (Off:0 Def:9) 102–107
Q4 0:09 MISS G. Allen 26' 3PT 102–107
Q4 0:13 R. Holland II Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 102–107

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Tobias Harris actually won the night
16 points, 7 boards, 2 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+12.2), defense (+11.6), and hustle (+7.9), pushing Net Impact to +24.9.
Scoring +12.2
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +11.6
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +7.9
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Cade Cunningham too hard
10 points, 4 boards, 11 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-11.8) and scoring (-2.1), pulling Net Impact down to -15.7.
Turnovers -11.8
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Scoring -2.1
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +1.2
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Ronald Holland II too hard
11 points, 9 boards, 1 assist was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-11.8) and defense (-1.1), pulling Net Impact down to -13.6.
Turnovers -11.8
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.2
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Oso Ighodaro's value was hiding in plain sight
10 points, 3 boards, 0 assists undersells it. defense (+11.3), scoring (+6.1), and hustle (+1.9) pushed his Net Impact to +9.8.
Defense +11.3
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Scoring +6.1
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +1.9
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.5m
10
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-15.7

An abysmal shooting night completely derailed the primary offense, as he repeatedly settled for contested, low-percentage jumpers. The high playmaking volume couldn't salvage a disastrous net rating fueled by dead-ball misses that ignited opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 25.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 28.5m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.9

Dominated the mid-post matchups by exploiting smaller defenders and making rapid, decisive reads. His exceptional two-way play was highlighted by textbook weak-side rotations that consistently blew up opponent set plays.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.9
Defense +11.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 28.4m
16
pts
18
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.8

Commanded the paint with overwhelming physicality, creating a massive possession advantage through second-chance opportunities. His vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection forced opposing guards to constantly abandon their drives.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +18.0
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 27.0m
19
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive scheme, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. While his scoring efficiency was superb, a few late-clock defensive miscommunications kept his overall impact from reaching the elite tier.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 19.1m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Offensive hesitation and a few poorly timed gambles for steals compromised his team's defensive shell. Despite showing flashes of elite athleticism on the glass, his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives pulled his value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Bogged down the half-court spacing by failing to make defenses pay for sagging off him on the perimeter. Sluggish pick-and-roll coverages allowed opposing guards to easily turn the corner, compounding his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -57.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

Reckless drives into traffic and poor spatial awareness resulted in empty possessions that fed the opponent's momentum. Despite playing with high energy and crashing the glass hard, his chaotic decision-making in the half-court was a severe detriment.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Jaden Ivey 16.9m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Injected immediate pace into the offense with lethal downhill attacks and highly efficient perimeter execution. His burst in early offense kept defenders on their heels, though occasional lapses in off-ball defensive awareness slightly muted his overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Bricked a series of wide-open corner looks that severely punished the team's drive-and-kick execution. He tried to compensate with high-motor closeouts and hustle plays, but the offensive dead weight ultimately dragged his impact below zero.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 15.9m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Faded into the background during his minutes, showing an uncharacteristic passivity that stalled the secondary unit's flow. While he competed hard on the defensive end, the lack of aggressive rim pressure made him a non-factor offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Sparked a massive momentum shift during a brief stint by pushing the tempo and making lightning-quick reads. His relentless ball pressure at the point of attack completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm in just a handful of minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
18
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

Exceptional shot selection and decisive playmaking kept the second unit humming perfectly in the half-court. However, his overall net rating remained muted due to being targeted on switches by larger wings during defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Grayson Allen 30.6m
33
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.2

Incredible perimeter volume stretched the defense to its breaking point, punishing drop coverages with relentless deep triggers. While the sheer quantity of missed threes slightly capped his overall ceiling, the gravity he provided opened up the entire floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 7/20 (35.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +22.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +8.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 29.2m
11
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.1

While perimeter execution was solid, his overall impact plunged into the red due to poorly timed defensive rotations and costly transition fouls. The floor-spacing gravity was completely negated by giving up easy lanes to the rim during Detroit's key runs.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 28.5m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Rampant shot-hunting cratered his value, as a barrage of forced, contested jumpers derailed the offensive flow. His typical defensive intensity was absent, allowing his primary assignments to consistently break the paint and generate open kick-outs.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 22.4m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence, fundamentally altering the geometry of the opponent's half-court offense. Even with a sharp drop in scoring volume, his active hands in the passing lanes and relentless box-outs generated massive hidden value.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
7
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

Relentless energy on the glass and elite point-of-attack pressure defined a gritty, glue-guy performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through deflections and offensive boards, though a few errant drives kept his overall impact modest.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +13.3
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 25.6m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.8

Put on an absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll coverage, seamlessly hedging and recovering to suffocate ball-handlers. His flawless defensive positioning and timely weak-side rotations completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +11.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 1
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 19.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, often floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. While he provided adequate weak-side help, a lack of aggression in attacking closeouts limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Operated strictly as a defensive specialist, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest late clock jumpers. The complete lack of offensive involvement prevented a higher score, but his disciplined closeouts provided a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +40.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no time to establish a rhythm. A quick blown coverage in transition during his short stint resulted in an immediate negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -1.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0