Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 182 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barnes 8/17 -1.3
Ingram Hard 7/15 +2.7
Mamukelashvili 8/14 +3.3
Shead Hard 5/12 +1.3
Quickley 6/12 +0.6
Dick 5/12 -3.1
Mogbo Open 1/5 -4.0
Agbaji Open 2/4 -1.1
Battle Hard 1/3 -0.1

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Westbrook 9/22 -4.7
LaVine 7/17 -2.5
Schröder 5/13 -3.0
DeRozan 3/8 -1.5
Monk 6/7 +7.4
Raynaud Hard 3/7 -0.3
Achiuwa Open 5/6 +3.7
Clifford Hard 2/6 -2.0
Cardwell Open 1/2 -0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
SAC
43/94 Field Goals 41/88
45.7% Field Goal % 46.6%
13/33 3-Pointers 9/33
39.4% 3-Point % 27.3%
23/25 Free Throws 18/22
92.0% Free Throw % 81.8%
58.1% True Shooting % 55.8%
52 Total Rebounds 53
15 Offensive 12
32 Defensive 33
30 Assists 25
2.73 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
10 Turnovers 14
11 Steals 6
3 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 16
54 Points in Paint 56
22 Fast Break Pts 12
25 Points off TOs 8
13 Second Chance Pts 17
21 Bench Points 39
19 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Scottie Barnes
23 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 31.9 MIN
+25.81
2
Sandro Mamukelashvili
22 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 32.3 MIN
+19.99
3
Immanuel Quickley
18 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 35.7 MIN
+18.99
4
Brandon Ingram
23 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+18.7
5
Jamal Shead
15 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 33.2 MIN
+16.7
6
Dylan Cardwell
2 PTS · 13 REB · 3 AST · 24.8 MIN
+14.31
7
Precious Achiuwa
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 20.7 MIN
+14.29
8
Russell Westbrook
23 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 34.5 MIN
+12.27
9
Zach LaVine
19 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 37.5 MIN
+10.22
10
Malik Monk
17 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 25.5 MIN
+9.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 122–109
Q4 0:25 D. Schröder personal FOUL (1 PF) 122–109
Q4 0:43 TEAM defensive REBOUND 122–109
Q4 0:46 MISS Z. LaVine 25' 3PT 122–109
Q4 0:55 I. Quickley 27' 3PT pullup (18 PTS) (S. Barnes 7 AST) 122–109
Q4 1:07 O. Agbaji REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 119–109
Q4 1:09 MISS Z. LaVine driving Layup 119–109
Q4 1:13 O. Agbaji alley-oop DUNK (4 PTS) (S. Barnes 6 AST) 119–109
Q4 1:32 D. Schröder running Layup (16 PTS) (N. Clifford 3 AST) 117–109
Q4 1:35 N. Clifford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 117–107
Q4 1:38 MISS S. Barnes 27' pullup 3PT 117–107
Q4 2:07 R. Westbrook driving Layup (23 PTS) 117–107
Q4 2:13 S. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 117–105
Q4 2:13 S. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 116–105
Q4 2:13 Z. LaVine shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 115–105

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
S Zach LaVine 37.5m
19
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

A heavy diet of contested, early-clock jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. His poor shot selection bailed out the defense time and again during crucial momentum swings. Despite showing flashes of engaged on-ball defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips tanked his net score.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Chaotic offensive decision-making and a barrage of missed perimeter shots offset his impressive defensive intensity. He generated significant pressure at the point of attack, but squandered those extra possessions with erratic drives into heavy traffic. The resulting transition run-outs for the opponent ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 33.3m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Uncharacteristic passivity completely cratered his net impact, as he repeatedly passed up favorable midrange matchups. The offense bogged down whenever he held the ball without attacking, leading to stagnant late-clock situations. This lack of aggressive shot creation allowed the defense to comfortably pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 22.1m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Struggling to establish deep post position resulted in a string of contested, low-percentage hooks that dragged down his overall efficiency. Opponents successfully pushed him off his spots, neutralizing his typical interior gravity. While he battled adequately on the glass, his inability to finish through contact severely limited his value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite finishing around the rim drove a highly positive rating during his time on the floor. He capitalized on broken plays and dump-offs, punishing the defense for rotating away from the dunker spot. His disciplined rim protection also deterred multiple drives without committing cheap fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 25.5m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

Blistering shooting efficiency kept the offense afloat, but his inability to navigate defensive screens gave those points right back. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive breakdowns across the board. The spectacular shot-making was essentially canceled out by his struggles to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +16.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Dominating the dirty work transformed a low-scoring night into a massive net positive for the frontcourt. He anchored the paint with exceptional verticality, altering numerous shots and securing crucial contested defensive boards. This relentless physical presence completely shut off the opponent's second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +16.5
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Blanking from beyond the arc allowed defenders to completely sag off him, destroying the team's half-court spacing. He provided sturdy resistance on the defensive end, but his offensive limitations were too costly to overcome. The opponent actively ignored him on the perimeter, forcing his teammates into suffocating double-teams.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Over-dribbling and settling for heavily contested pull-up threes neutralized his scoring burst. He consistently stalled the offensive flow by ignoring open shooters on the weak side, opting instead for low-percentage isolation looks. A complete lack of hustle plays further emphasized a performance that looked better in the box score than on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.8

Navigating pick-and-roll traffic with poise allowed him to generate high-quality looks for teammates, driving his positive box score impact. However, defensive lapses in transition and a few forced perimeter jumpers dragged down his overall net rating. His ability to draw fouls during the third-quarter push was the main catalyst keeping his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.7m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

A sharp uptick in perimeter scoring efficiency drove his positive box score metrics, masking a relatively quiet night on the margins. His overall impact remained modest because he rarely engaged in defensive rotations or loose-ball scrums. The offensive focal point role suited him well during crucial isolation stretches, but the lack of secondary effort capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jamal Shead 33.2m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.4

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined this outing, reflected in superb defensive and hustle metrics. By fighting through screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs, he consistently derailed the opponent's offensive timing. His unexpected perimeter shot-making served as a crucial bonus that kept defenders honest.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.5

Capitalizing on favorable frontcourt matchups, his floor-spacing ability completely opened up the half-court offense. The high net rating stems from excellent shot selection and timely weak-side defensive rotations that disrupted lob attempts. He operated as a reliable release valve whenever the primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +10.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 31.9m
23
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+23.9

Elite two-way engagement fueled a massive overall impact score, highlighted by exceptional defensive metrics. He dictated the game's physicality by consistently blowing up opponent pick-and-rolls and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle. This aggressive downhill mentality forced the defense into constant rotation, elevating his value far beyond his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +8.2
Defense +9.1
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive struggles around the rim tanked his net impact despite commendable effort on the glass. He repeatedly forced heavily contested interior shots rather than kicking out to open shooters. The resulting empty possessions negated the value of his hard-nosed box-outs and physical screen-setting.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -5.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 19.6m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A lack of offensive assertiveness severely limited his overall footprint on the game. While he provided sturdy on-ball defense against opposing wings, his reluctance to attack closeouts stalled the team's momentum. He essentially operated as a non-factor on the offensive end, allowing defenders to freely roam and pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +56.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 19.2m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Cold perimeter shooting dragged down his overall rating, as he failed to punish defensive coverages that dared him to shoot. Even with a notable uptick in scoring volume, the sheer number of missed long-range attempts resulted in costly empty trips. He managed to salvage some value by executing crisp defensive rotations on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Brief rotational minutes yielded a negative impact due to defensive miscommunications in transition. He managed to stretch the floor during a short second-quarter stint, but struggled to keep up with the game's pace. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -50.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A fleeting appearance resulted in a sharp negative rating due to blown defensive assignments during a quick opponent run. He failed to register any meaningful offensive actions, mostly floating on the perimeter. The lack of engagement on either end made his brief stint actively detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1