Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III Hard 3/20 -13.3
Bey 4/16 -6.9
Jones Hard 3/12 -5.8
Williamson Open 8/11 +3.0
Queen Open 4/11 -4.4
Fears 3/9 -3.5
Alvarado Hard 3/7 +0.1
Peavy 0/5 -5.5
Missi Open 4/4 +2.4
Matković 2/4 +1.7

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 8/22 -6.7
Holmgren 8/14 +1.1
Dort Hard 4/12 -1.0
Joe Hard 6/11 +4.9
Wiggins 4/11 -2.3
Williams 1/8 -7.6
Dieng 2/5 -1.7
Williams Hard 1/2 +1.2
Carlson Hard 1/2 0.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
OKC
34/99 Field Goals 35/87
34.3% Field Goal % 40.2%
10/40 3-Pointers 13/38
25.0% 3-Point % 34.2%
17/22 Free Throws 21/23
77.3% Free Throw % 91.3%
43.7% True Shooting % 53.5%
62 Total Rebounds 62
21 Offensive 13
33 Defensive 40
25 Assists 25
2.78 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
8 Turnovers 16
13 Steals 4
11 Blocks 9
21 Fouls 15
44 Points in Paint 38
13 Fast Break Pts 10
24 Points off TOs 15
16 Second Chance Pts 26
30 Bench Points 26
5 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Chet Holmgren
20 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 33.0 MIN
+26.47
2
Zion Williamson
21 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 33.6 MIN
+19.82
3
Saddiq Bey
16 PTS · 13 REB · 5 AST · 33.2 MIN
+19.44
4
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
29 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 35.8 MIN
+13.42
5
Isaiah Joe
17 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 24.4 MIN
+11.58
6
Derik Queen
9 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+11.08
7
Luguentz Dort
12 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 34.1 MIN
+10.92
8
Herbert Jones
9 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 26.5 MIN
+10.55
9
Yves Missi
9 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.2 MIN
+9.89
10
Jeremiah Fears
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 18.0 MIN
+9.73
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Fears REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 95–104
Q4 0:02 MISS H. Jones 3PT 95–104
Q4 0:03 H. Jones REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 95–104
Q4 0:07 MISS T. Murphy III 27' step back 3PT 95–104
Q4 0:12 H. Jones REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 95–104
Q4 0:16 MISS T. Murphy III 28' step back 3PT 95–104
Q4 0:29 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 95–104
Q4 0:29 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 95–103
Q4 0:29 J. Fears personal FOUL (3 PF) (Gilgeous-Alexander 2 FT) 95–102
Q4 0:30 S. Bey driving finger roll Layup (16 PTS) (H. Jones 5 AST) 95–102
Q4 0:34 J. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 93–102
Q4 0:34 J. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 93–101
Q4 0:34 Y. Missi shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 93–100
Q4 0:34 J. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:9) 93–100
Q4 0:36 MISS L. Dort 9' Jump Shot 93–100

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
29
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.4

A heavy diet of contested, missed jumpers severely depressed his usual offensive efficiency, keeping his overall impact surprisingly muted despite high usage. However, his sheer volume of rim pressure and ability to draw defensive attention still managed to keep the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 34.1m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Hot perimeter shooting was heavily undercut by poor finishing inside the arc and defensive lapses that uncharacteristically hurt his net rating. While the three-point volume provided necessary spacing, his struggles to convert in traffic limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Wiggins 34.1m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Despite putting on an absolute clinic defensively, his overall impact was dragged into the red by offensive inefficiency. The inability to convert on drives and mid-range looks stunted the team's momentum, overshadowing his elite point-of-attack containment.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Chet Holmgren 33.0m
20
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.1

Completely dictated the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor, pairing highly efficient interior scoring with terrifying rim protection. His ability to seamlessly switch between offensive hub and defensive anchor resulted in a dominant, game-altering performance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +15.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +13.9
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
S Jaylin Williams 26.8m
4
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.3

A complete lack of touch around the basket and from deep severely handicapped the offense during his minutes. He provided strong positional defense and rebounding, but the sheer number of empty offensive trips proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
Isaiah Joe 24.4m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Lethal off-ball movement and elite perimeter shot-making punished the defense every time they lost track of him. His ability to consistently knock down catch-and-shoot opportunities stretched the floor to its breaking point, driving a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.5

Suffered a massive negative swing due to poor rotational awareness and an inability to connect the offense during his stint. His extreme low usage meant he wasn't actively hurting the team with misses, but his failure to generate any meaningful advantage allowed opponents to relentlessly exploit his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Passive offensive involvement and a reluctance to attack closeouts limited his ability to positively influence the game. He chipped in with a few hustle plays, but ultimately floated on the perimeter without applying any real pressure on the defense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Logged quick rotational minutes that were largely uneventful, managing one successful conversion inside. His slight negative impact was a byproduct of defensive breakdowns around him rather than poor individual execution.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Barely registered a blip during a brief cameo appearance, failing to attempt a shot or make a tangible mark on the game. The negative rating stems mostly from being on the floor during an opponent run rather than glaring individual mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.0
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
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 39.1m
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

An absolutely brutal perimeter shooting slump torpedoed his overall value, as the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions crippled the team's halfcourt rhythm. While he fought hard on the other end to generate stops and loose ball recoveries, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the massive crater he created with his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/20 (15.0%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 33.6m
21
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.8

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive box score impact, as he converted highly efficient looks around the rim to punish undersized defenders. His physical presence forced the defense to collapse, creating gravity that opened up the floor, while steady defensive rotations rounded out a highly productive outing.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +11.1
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 33.2m
16
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.2

Despite severe struggles finishing inside the arc, his defensive positioning and perimeter spacing kept his overall impact above water. The massive volume of missed two-pointers dragged down his offensive rating, but his ability to secure defensive stops salvaged his night.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +16.5
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 26.5m
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite defensive instincts and consistent hustle plays barely kept his head above water on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. The constant clanking from deep severely limited the team's spacing, but his point-of-attack pressure mitigated the offensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Derik Queen 26.2m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

A phenomenal defensive anchor performance completely erased the damage from his inefficient interior scoring. He generated immense value through high-activity hustle plays and rim deterrence, proving that his impact extends far beyond his touch around the basket.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Yves Missi 21.2m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Flawless shot selection and vertical spacing created highly efficient offensive possessions whenever he touched the ball as a roll man. His defensive presence further amplified his value, as he effectively walled off the paint without committing costly fouls.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Relentless energy and signature hustle plays defined his stint, though his overall impact flatlined due to defensive limitations at the point of attack. He generated decent offensive flow, but struggled to contain dribble penetration, resulting in a perfectly neutral net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Shook off a poor shooting night by heavily leaning into his defensive assignments and generating disruption on the perimeter. The missed shots were easily forgiven thanks to his high-motor defensive rotations that consistently blew up opponent actions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Peavy 12.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.5

Complete offensive invisibility and poor shot selection resulted in a deeply negative stint on the floor. Although he tried to compensate with active hustle plays, the inability to generate any scoring gravity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Perfect execution from beyond the arc in limited minutes provided a massive spark of floor-spacing value. He capitalized on every offensive opportunity while maintaining solid defensive positioning, maximizing his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -63.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0