Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Johnson Hard 7/17 +2.3
Sarr 8/12 +4.7
George 6/12 -1.6
Champagnie Open 7/11 +1.0
Branham 6/9 +3.3
Riley Hard 2/8 -1.8
Johnson 2/6 -2.3
Watkins 2/5 -2.2
Bagley III 1/5 -3.4
Carrington Hard 3/4 +5.4

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Westbrook 9/14 +8.1
DeRozan Hard 6/13 +1.1
LaVine 6/12 +2.4
Achiuwa Open 7/8 +4.9
Schröder 4/6 +3.7
Sabonis Open 5/6 +2.7
Clifford Hard 3/6 +1.2
Monk 1/6 -4.7
Cardwell Open 4/5 +1.5
Raynaud 2/5 -1.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
SAC
44/90 Field Goals 47/81
48.9% Field Goal % 58.0%
11/34 3-Pointers 15/31
32.4% 3-Point % 48.4%
16/21 Free Throws 19/30
76.2% Free Throw % 63.3%
57.9% True Shooting % 67.9%
38 Total Rebounds 58
7 Offensive 12
27 Defensive 33
23 Assists 36
2.09 Assist/TO Ratio 1.89
11 Turnovers 18
9 Steals 5
2 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 19
62 Points in Paint 60
8 Fast Break Pts 14
27 Points off TOs 15
13 Second Chance Pts 14
37 Bench Points 49
1 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Precious Achiuwa
16 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 27.6 MIN
+20.13
2
Russell Westbrook
26 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 31.1 MIN
+19.37
3
Alex Sarr
19 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 27.7 MIN
+15.53
4
Kyshawn George
15 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 23.8 MIN
+15.06
5
Zach LaVine
16 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 32.4 MIN
+13.98
6
Justin Champagnie
15 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 26.7 MIN
+13.71
7
Tre Johnson
18 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 29.7 MIN
+13.65
8
Malaki Branham
13 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 13.2 MIN
+13.16
9
Bub Carrington
11 PTS · 2 REB · 9 AST · 38.9 MIN
+11.73
10
Dennis Schröder
15 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 20.2 MIN
+10.44
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 SAC shot clock Team TURNOVER 115–128
Q4 0:33 Z. LaVine REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 115–128
Q4 0:33 Z. LaVine BLOCK (2 BLK) 115–128
Q4 0:33 MISS A. Johnson 6' driving Layup - blocked 115–128
Q4 0:36 A. Johnson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 115–128
Q4 0:39 MISS Z. LaVine 18' pullup Shot 115–128
Q4 0:54 D. Cardwell REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 115–128
Q4 0:58 MISS A. Gill 24' 3PT 115–128
Q4 1:05 D. Cardwell alley-oop Layup (8 PTS) (D. DeRozan 4 AST) 115–128
Q4 1:21 T. Johnson running DUNK (18 PTS) 115–126
Q4 1:24 K. George STEAL (1 STL) 113–126
Q4 1:24 R. Westbrook bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 113–126
Q4 1:42 TEAM delay-of-game VIOLATION 113–126
Q4 1:42 TEAM defensive REBOUND 113–126
Q4 1:42 Z. LaVine BLOCK (1 BLK) 113–126

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 32.8m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

A stark disconnect between his individual scoring and overall team success resulted in a brutal -7.7 total impact. Poor transition defense and a tendency to hold the ball too long against double teams allowed opponents to dictate the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 32.4m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Efficient perimeter shot-making generated a strong box score rating, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to off-ball defensive lapses. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, giving away easy layups that negated his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
26
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.8

Exploded for a massive offensive resurgence by catching fire from beyond the arc and punishing defenders who went under screens. This sudden perimeter gravity opened up passing lanes, driving a stellar +18.3 box impact and a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +21.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Dominated the interior with ruthless efficiency, continuing a phenomenal streak of high-percentage finishing around the basket. His +4.5 defensive impact was highlighted by textbook verticality at the rim, deterring multiple driving attempts without fouling.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 21.7m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Took a massive step back as a scoring threat, passing up open looks and clogging the spacing in half-court sets. While his rebounding and positional defense remained stout, offensive passivity and sloppy screen-setting dragged his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Anchored the frontcourt with elite two-way physicality, generating massive hustle and defensive metrics in limited minutes. His ability to seal off the defensive glass and initiate fast breaks with pinpoint outlet passes defined his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -9.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
15
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.0

Picked apart drop coverages with surgical precision to generate a massive +11.1 box score impact. Despite the offensive clinic, a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and poor transition effort kept his overall rating nearly flat.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Played a highly controlled two-way game, taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense to secure a positive overall impact. His +2.9 defensive rating was fueled by excellent weak-side rotations that consistently blew up opponent lob attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on dump-off passes to finish efficiently around the rim, significantly outperforming his usual scoring average. However, his total impact was muted by a lack of rim protection (+0.1 Def), as opposing guards repeatedly finished through him in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +54.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +10.5
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 15.6m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

Forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the offensive flow and tanking his box impact. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, directly contributing to a disastrous -10.6 total rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 38.9m
11
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite operating efficiently as a distributor, a catastrophic string of live-ball turnovers tanked his overall rating into the red. He gave away too many possessions forcing passes into tight pick-and-roll windows, completely negating his otherwise solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.7%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 29.8m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.9

Heavy shot volume and midrange misses suppressed his overall efficiency, keeping his total impact barely positive. However, his elite point-of-attack defense (+5.1) salvaged his night, effectively blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 27.7m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

A massive offensive surge fueled a stellar overall rating, as he abandoned perimeter settling to dominate the painted area. His +4.0 defensive impact anchored the frontcourt, consistently altering shots as a weak-side helper.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Sustained his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring by attacking closeouts with purpose rather than settling for contested jumpers. The robust +15.2 box impact stems from excellent shot selection around the rim, though his defensive rotations were merely passable.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 23.8m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

High-level impact (+10.0) was driven entirely by relentless activity on the glass and interior finishing, completely offsetting a cold night from beyond the arc. His elite hustle metrics (+5.3) reflected a constant motor in transition defense and loose ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Racked up tremendous hustle and defensive metrics by diving for loose balls and aggressively disrupting passing lanes. Unfortunately, those effort plays were completely undone by careless offensive fouls and transition turnovers that plummeted his total impact to -6.7.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 22.0m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.7

An abysmal shot selection from the perimeter derailed his offensive rhythm and led to a brutal -13.3 total impact. Opponents aggressively targeted him in isolation, exposing sluggish lateral movement that dragged his defensive metrics into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Found ways to contribute despite a dreadful shooting night by crashing the offensive glass and keeping possessions alive. His exceptional +6.0 hustle score was defined by relentless rim-running that forced early defensive rotations, compensating for his lack of scoring touch.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Provided a massive spark plug effect off the bench by decisively attacking the midrange. His crisp shot-making generated a +10.8 box impact, while disciplined closeouts on the perimeter boosted his defensive rating to +3.5.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 11.5m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Struggled to find the bottom of the net on rushed perimeter attempts, keeping his box impact perfectly flat. He managed to stay on the floor through gritty on-ball defense (+3.2), particularly when navigating screens against secondary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -99.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting cameo that snapped a highly efficient five-game scoring streak. A rushed, ill-advised perimeter heave in garbage time was his only notable contribution, resulting in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0