Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 9/17 +2.1
Harris 10/15 +5.7
Duren Open 6/10 -0.4
Robinson Hard 1/9 -7.7
Ivey Hard 3/8 0.0
Jenkins 0/8 -8.0
Thompson Open 5/7 +1.9
Holland II 4/7 +1.9
Stewart Open 3/7 -2.9
Green 3/6 +0.1

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Watson 6/20 -7.5
Murray 7/18 -3.9
Hardaway Jr. Hard 5/13 +0.9
Brown Open 7/10 +1.4
Valančiūnas Open 6/10 +1.0
Jones Hard 4/5 +6.5
Pickett 2/3 +0.9
Nnaji Open 2/3 -0.2
Strawther Open 1/2 -0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
DEN
44/94 Field Goals 40/84
46.8% Field Goal % 47.6%
6/31 3-Pointers 10/29
19.4% 3-Point % 34.5%
15/18 Free Throws 17/23
83.3% Free Throw % 73.9%
53.5% True Shooting % 56.8%
47 Total Rebounds 57
13 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 36
24 Assists 22
3.43 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
6 Turnovers 15
10 Steals 4
3 Blocks 9
21 Fouls 16
64 Points in Paint 48
10 Fast Break Pts 13
20 Points off TOs 10
18 Second Chance Pts 18
35 Bench Points 38
18 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tobias Harris
22 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 31.3 MIN
+26.61
2
Ausar Thompson
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 19.7 MIN
+22.76
3
Cade Cunningham
22 PTS · 3 REB · 11 AST · 36.4 MIN
+21.01
4
Bruce Brown
16 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+18.4
5
Spencer Jones
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 32.7 MIN
+15.54
6
Jonas Valančiūnas
16 PTS · 16 REB · 1 AST · 30.9 MIN
+15.51
7
Jalen Duren
14 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 29.9 MIN
+12.28
8
Jamal Murray
24 PTS · 5 REB · 10 AST · 38.7 MIN
+11.84
9
Tim Hardaway Jr.
14 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 31.8 MIN
+10.19
10
Javonte Green
10 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 19.5 MIN
+8.46
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–107
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Murray Free Throw 3 of 3 109–107
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–107
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Murray Free Throw 2 of 3 109–107
Q4 0:00 J. Murray Free Throw 1 of 3 (24 PTS) 109–107
Q4 0:00 J. Green shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Murray 3 FT) 109–106
Q4 0:02 T. Harris Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 109–106
Q4 0:02 T. Harris Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 108–106
Q4 0:02 S. Jones take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Harris 2 FT) 107–106
Q4 0:02 J. Murray take personal FOUL (2 PF) 107–106
Q4 0:03 J. Murray Free Throw 3 of 3 (23 PTS) 107–106
Q4 0:03 J. Murray Free Throw 2 of 3 (22 PTS) 107–105
Q4 0:03 TEAM offensive REBOUND 107–104
Q4 0:03 MISS J. Murray Free Throw 1 of 3 107–104
Q4 0:03 J. Green shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Murray 3 FT) 107–104

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

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.7m
24
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.5

A brutal night from beyond the arc dragged down his overall efficiency and neutralized his high-end playmaking. While he successfully orchestrated the offense to generate positive box metrics, the wasted perimeter possessions proved too costly. His inability to find his outside stroke ultimately tipped his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 37.0m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.2

Shot selection completely torpedoed his value, as he forced up a massive volume of low-percentage looks that killed offensive possessions. While he provided decent resistance on defense and fought for loose balls, it couldn't salvage the damage done by his heavily contested attempts. The sheer inefficiency of his offensive diet was the defining factor in his team-worst rating.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 32.7m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

Exploded past his usual production with lethal, low-volume perimeter sniping that maximized every touch. He compounded this massive offensive efficiency spike with elite hustle and crisp defensive rotations. This flawless two-way execution made him the ultimate high-leverage role player tonight.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Dominated the interior with a highly efficient scoring surge that nearly doubled his recent output. His massive rebounding presence anchored the defense and consistently ended opponent possessions. Bullying smaller matchups in the paint drove a rock-solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +20.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Pickett 16.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite converting his few attempts to boost his scoring average, a lack of overall involvement limited his positive contributions. Minimal hustle plays and a failure to generate broader offensive flow resulted in a net negative shift. He simply didn't assert enough pressure on the game to offset the bench unit's struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed results, as his overall field goal inefficiency outweighed the perimeter makes. He offered very little in terms of hustle or defensive resistance to balance out the missed jumpers. The volatile nature of his shot profile prevented him from establishing a positive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 23.2m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Continued his streak of surgical offensive efficiency, exploiting gaps in the defense to significantly outpace his recent scoring norms. He paired this clinical finishing with disruptive defensive activity that fueled transition opportunities. His ability to seamlessly blend high-percentage scoring with perimeter lockdown duties drove a superb net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 17.1m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Provided adequate energy and defensive positioning but failed to make a meaningful dent offensively. His low usage rate meant his efficient finishing couldn't scale up to cover the rotational gaps while he was on the floor. It was a quiet, low-leverage stint that drifted into negative territory due to a lack of overall volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Barely factored into the game's outcome during his brief stint, logging minimal touches and negligible defensive impact. While he didn't actively hurt the team with poor shooting, his lack of aggression kept him from generating positive momentum. A completely passive shift resulted in a slightly negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.5m
22
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
+15.8

Elite playmaking and efficient mid-range execution fueled a massive overall impact. He consistently manipulated the defense to create high-value looks for teammates while maintaining his own scoring rhythm. A balanced effort across hustle and defensive metrics ensured his offensive orchestration translated to a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 31.3m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+27.3

A surge in offensive efficiency drove a stellar net impact, capitalizing on high-percentage interior looks to shatter his recent scoring averages. He supplemented this scoring gravity with solid defensive positioning to anchor the frontcourt. The veteran's clinical shot execution was the primary engine for his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 29.9m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Despite a significant drop in his usual scoring volume, consistent interior finishing kept his offensive baseline stable. He salvaged a positive overall impact through steady rim protection and effort plays. Maintaining his streak of efficient shooting nights prevented his quieter offensive outing from becoming a negative.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 23.1m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.4

A catastrophic perimeter shooting slump, missing every attempt from deep, cratered his overall value and tanked his offensive gravity. While he tried to compensate with active off-ball movement and loose ball recoveries, it wasn't enough to offset the wasted possessions. The sheer volume of missed outside looks defined this highly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring -4.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 19.7m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.5

Generated massive value through elite defensive and hustle metrics that completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. His highly efficient shot selection yielded a major scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. This two-way dominance cemented his status as the game's most impactful presence.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Even with a notable scoring bump compared to his recent slump, his overall impact remained negative due to underlying inefficiencies in his floor game. Defensive lapses and a failure to generate secondary value offset his improved shooting touch. The scoring spike masked deeper rotational struggles that ultimately hurt the unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Marginal defensive contributions and average hustle metrics couldn't quite push him into positive territory. His inability to stretch the floor on perimeter attempts limited his offensive ceiling and clogged the spacing. Ultimately, it was a pedestrian shift where he largely blended into the background without moving the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Opportunistic scoring and steady rebounding kept his head above water despite a slight negative rating on the defensive end. He capitalized on his limited touches by converting efficiently around the basket. It was a workmanlike shift where mistake-free offense barely outweighed minor defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.1

An absolute offensive black hole, missing every single shot attempt to completely derail the second unit's momentum. His inability to convert on any looks erased his usual scoring punch and resulted in a massive drop-off from his recent averages. The sheer number of empty possessions defined this disastrous stint.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring -5.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 17.8m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Inconsistent perimeter execution and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to find high-percentage looks inside the arc, relying too heavily on contested outside jumpers. Minimal defensive disruption meant his inefficient shooting directly harmed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1