Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHX lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
PHX 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 8/22 -3.4
Duren Open 10/11 +6.2
Robinson Hard 4/11 -1.2
Harris Hard 5/9 +4.3
Jenkins Hard 2/8 -4.1
Thompson Open 3/6 -0.8
Stewart Open 4/5 +1.5
Holland II Hard 0/5 -4.7
Green Hard 0/3 -3.0
Ivey 0/3 -3.3

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks Hard 13/22 +9.5
Allen Hard 5/14 +1.3
Gillespie Hard 5/12 +4.4
O'Neale Hard 4/8 +1.3
Bouyea Hard 3/8 -2.0
Williams Open 3/5 +0.1
Goodwin 1/4 -2.2
Ighodaro Open 2/3 +0.3
Dunn 1/2 +0.5
Fleming Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
PHX
37/87 Field Goals 37/79
42.5% Field Goal % 46.8%
6/29 3-Pointers 16/42
20.7% 3-Point % 38.1%
16/21 Free Throws 24/29
76.2% Free Throw % 82.8%
49.9% True Shooting % 62.1%
45 Total Rebounds 58
9 Offensive 11
28 Defensive 36
26 Assists 22
2.89 Assist/TO Ratio 1.29
9 Turnovers 15
8 Steals 8
2 Blocks 3
19 Fouls 23
54 Points in Paint 36
13 Fast Break Pts 16
17 Points off TOs 14
10 Second Chance Pts 24
19 Bench Points 18
2 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Dillon Brooks
40 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 32.7 MIN
+35.04
2
Jalen Duren
23 PTS · 13 REB · 4 AST · 28.3 MIN
+30.92
3
Cade Cunningham
26 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 33.6 MIN
+20.01
4
Grayson Allen
24 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 34.1 MIN
+15.87
5
Tobias Harris
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.5 MIN
+10.39
6
Collin Gillespie
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 25.7 MIN
+7.42
7
Jordan Goodwin
2 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 22.6 MIN
+6.21
8
Mark Williams
6 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 24.8 MIN
+5.6
9
Jamaree Bouyea
6 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 20.0 MIN
+5.56
10
Oso Ighodaro
6 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 20.4 MIN
+5.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 PHX shot clock Team TURNOVER 96–114
Q4 0:28 N. Hayes-Davis REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 96–114
Q4 0:30 MISS P. Reed 9' driving Layup 96–114
Q4 0:40 J. Bouyea lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 96–114
Q4 1:00 D. Jenkins Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 96–114
Q4 1:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–114
Q4 1:00 MISS D. Jenkins Free Throw 1 of 2 95–114
Q4 1:00 K. Maluach shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Jenkins 2 FT) 95–114
Q4 1:09 K. Maluach offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 95–114
Q4 1:09 K. Maluach offensive FOUL (1 PF) 95–114
Q4 1:18 P. Reed 14' Jump Shot (2 PTS) (R. Holland II 2 AST) 95–114
Q4 1:27 B. Klintman REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 93–114
Q4 1:31 MISS R. Fleming 24' 3PT 93–114
Q4 1:41 N. Hayes-Davis REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 93–114
Q4 1:44 MISS D. Jenkins 19' pullup Shot 93–114

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

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Grayson Allen 34.1m
24
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.2

A heavy volume of missed perimeter shots suppressed what could have been a dominant offensive rating. However, his constant off-ball movement and gravity kept the floor spaced, allowing his net impact to barely stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 32.7m
40
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+42.4

An explosive scoring surge paired with suffocating perimeter defense (+4.5 Def) resulted in a massive +24.4 net impact. His relentless isolation scoring against mismatches completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and carried the offensive load.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +32.8
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +8.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 28.3m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Strong hustle metrics (+3.6) were undone by defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) and a failure to secure defensive rebounds. Repeatedly losing his man on weakside closeouts allowed back-breaking corner threes that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Excellent defensive ball pressure (+3.7 Def) and timely perimeter shooting nearly pushed his impact into positive territory. The damage came from several ill-advised live-ball turnovers when attempting to force passes through tight pick-and-roll windows.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 24.8m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-level rim protection (+2.5 Def) and active screening (+3.8 Hustle) kept his impact near neutral despite a low-usage offensive night. A tendency to fumble interior passes prevented him from capitalizing on deep post seals, capping his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite defensive disruption (+4.0 Def) and relentless loose-ball recovery (+3.5 Hustle) almost entirely masked his offensive struggles. His inability to punish defenders for going under screens ultimately kept his total score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 20.4m
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Despite highly efficient finishing around the basket, his overall impact suffered from a lack of rim deterrence. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in drop coverage, leading to easy floaters that chipped away at his defensive value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+5.2 Def) was dragged down by a string of empty offensive possessions. Forcing contested floaters instead of moving the ball stalled the secondary unit's momentum and resulted in a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 13.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

A lack of defensive awareness (-0.2 Def) and minimal hustle contributions resulted in a noticeably negative stint. Consistently getting caught ball-watching allowed his assignment to generate easy backdoor points that hurt the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Generated positive value entirely through connective passing and stout positional defense (+2.4 Def) without attempting a single field goal. His ability to execute crisp defensive switches prevented several breakdown situations and stabilized the unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

A disastrously short stint was defined by immediate negative plays on the offensive end. Jacking up a contested perimeter shot early in the clock instantly killed the team's offensive flow and tanked his impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Managed to secure a few loose balls but otherwise floated through his brief appearance. A failure to close out on perimeter shooters during a short rotational stint resulted in a slightly negative output driven by defensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Defensive miscommunications (-0.6 Def) immediately punished his short time on the court. Failing to establish post position or alter shots at the rim left the interior completely vulnerable to driving guards.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 33.6m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.6

Tremendous two-way activity (+6.2 Hustle, +8.2 Def) heavily outweighed the damage from a high volume of missed shots. His point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions, keeping his net impact highly positive despite the inefficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 30.3m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A severe drop in perimeter efficiency cratered his overall impact (-8.9) as opponents aggressively chased him off the line. Forcing contested looks from deep rather than keeping the ball moving stalled several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 29.6m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Solid defensive positioning (+4.0 Def) kept him afloat, but poor shot selection ultimately capped his value. Settling for contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and led to empty trips.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 28.3m
23
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+37.1

Complete dominance in the paint drove a massive +22.3 impact score, fueled by relentless rim-running and finishing through contact. His ability to anchor the drop coverage (+5.8 Def) while maintaining incredible offensive efficiency completely dictated the terms of the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +22.0
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +15.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 25.1m
6
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.8

Despite generating positive value through loose ball recoveries (+2.8 Hustle), his overall impact sank into the red due to offensive passivity. A distinct pattern of passing up open perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag into the paint and choke off driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Efficient interior finishing wasn't enough to overcome a lack of rebounding presence, dragging his net score slightly into the red. Repeatedly getting sealed out of the paint on defensive glass sequences neutralized his otherwise solid physical defense (+2.6 Def).

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.9

High-energy hustle plays (+3.5) were entirely offset by poor shot selection and a steep drop-off from his usual scoring efficiency. A pattern of driving into crowded lanes rather than resetting the offense led to low-quality attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, his inability to connect from the floor severely punished the team's spacing. A persistent pattern of forcing contested drives into traffic resulted in a sheer volume of empty trips that defined his heavily negative output.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Active hands and decent rotational defense (+1.4 Def) couldn't mask the offensive void he left on the floor. Missing multiple wide-open corner threes allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers without penalty.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -58.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 7.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Empty offensive trips and rushed decisions in transition quickly sank his impact during a brief stint. A failure to read the weakside help led to forced drives into heavy traffic, resulting in wasted possessions and opponent run-outs.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a short stint, offering little beyond basic defensive positioning. A rushed perimeter attempt early in the shot clock highlighted a lack of offensive rhythm and quickly pushed his impact negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Failed to register any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics, leading to a quick negative impact score. Getting consistently beat on back-door cuts exposed his lack of situational awareness during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 3.8m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Made an immediate positive impact in limited minutes through highly disruptive defensive rotations (+2.6 Def). His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions at the level of the screen created instant value despite the minimal offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0