Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 11/19 +3.3
Duren Open 7/14 -3.9
Robinson Hard 5/11 +4.2
Stewart 7/10 +2.6
Harris 3/10 -4.2
Thompson 3/10 -4.7
Jenkins Hard 4/8 +1.5
Ivey 3/7 -0.8
Holland II Open 2/5 -2.2
Green Hard 1/1 +2.1

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 7/16 +2.0
Melton 7/13 +0.5
Green Hard 5/10 +4.1
Hield Hard 4/10 -0.2
Santos 7/9 +5.7
Horford 5/9 +1.0
Moody Hard 3/8 +1.3
Podziemski 1/8 -5.8
Post Hard 1/6 -3.8
Richard Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
GSW
46/95 Field Goals 40/90
48.4% Field Goal % 44.4%
10/26 3-Pointers 18/52
38.5% 3-Point % 34.6%
29/36 Free Throws 26/35
80.6% Free Throw % 74.3%
59.1% True Shooting % 58.8%
61 Total Rebounds 54
15 Offensive 11
38 Defensive 31
31 Assists 31
1.94 Assist/TO Ratio 1.72
14 Turnovers 18
13 Steals 10
3 Blocks 4
23 Fouls 20
62 Points in Paint 40
25 Fast Break Pts 10
31 Points off TOs 23
14 Second Chance Pts 7
44 Bench Points 51
20 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cade Cunningham
29 PTS · 4 REB · 11 AST · 34.8 MIN
+21.8
2
Jalen Duren
21 PTS · 13 REB · 3 AST · 29.5 MIN
+20.3
3
Gui Santos
16 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 25.5 MIN
+19.11
4
Al Horford
13 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 23.3 MIN
+16.96
5
Isaiah Stewart
14 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 23.9 MIN
+15.95
6
De'Anthony Melton
18 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 25.5 MIN
+13.73
7
Tobias Harris
15 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 34.3 MIN
+13.4
8
Daniss Jenkins
12 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 17.0 MIN
+11.32
9
Brandin Podziemski
11 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 28.3 MIN
+11.3
10
Ausar Thompson
7 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 28.9 MIN
+10.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 T. Harris Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 131–124
Q4 0:03 T. Harris Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 130–124
Q4 0:03 D. Green personal FOUL (6 PF) (Harris 2 FT) 129–124
Q4 0:11 C. Cunningham REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 129–124
Q4 0:13 MISS B. Hield Free Throw 2 of 2 129–124
Q4 0:13 TEAM offensive REBOUND 129–124
Q4 0:13 MISS B. Hield Free Throw 1 of 2 129–124
Q4 0:13 D. Jenkins personal FOUL (1 PF) (Hield 2 FT) 129–124
Q4 0:22 D. Green REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 129–124
Q4 0:24 MISS J. Duren Free Throw 2 of 2 129–124
Q4 0:24 TEAM offensive REBOUND 129–124
Q4 0:24 MISS J. Duren Free Throw 1 of 2 129–124
Q4 0:24 D. Green take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Duren 2 FT) 129–124
Q4 0:38 T. Harris REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 129–124
Q4 0:43 MISS B. Podziemski 28' pullup 3PT 129–124

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 32.9m
15
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

Uncharacteristic defensive lapses and late rotations undermined a surprisingly aggressive perimeter shooting night. While the floor-spacing was a welcome addition, giving up easy backdoor cuts erased the value of his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -5.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.2

A brutal shooting slump severely hampered his offensive output, halting the momentum of his recent scoring tear. However, he prevented a complete ratings disaster by relentlessly chasing loose balls (+4.2 hustle) and maintaining disciplined defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Stephen Curry 25.4m
23
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Heavy defensive attention forced him into contested, low-percentage looks that disrupted the team's offensive flow. Even with standard perimeter production, the opponent successfully targeted him in switch actions on the other end, pulling his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Moses Moody 25.1m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Despite commendable effort on 50/50 balls (+3.9 hustle), his minutes coincided with massive opponent scoring runs that cratered his net rating (-9.1). Poor spacing and a steep drop-off in offensive assertiveness compared to his previous outing allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Al Horford 23.3m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Veteran positioning and flawless pick-and-roll coverage (+7.8 defense) anchored a highly effective rotational stint. He neutralized the opposing frontcourt without fouling, utilizing high-IQ closeouts and timely contests to drive a stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Snapping out of a brutal shooting slump, he capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to stabilize the second unit. His two-way energy was palpable, combining efficient finishing with disruptive on-ball defense (+4.0) to swing momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Gui Santos 25.5m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Surgical precision on offense and elite weak-side rotations (+7.3 defense) culminated in a dominant two-way performance. He sustained a red-hot efficiency streak by exclusively taking high-value shots within the flow of the offense, punishing defensive breakdowns with ease.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 17.1m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc yielded a poor return on investment, squandering possessions on rushed, early-clock jumpers. While he finally saw some shots fall after a miserable four-game stretch, the defensive concessions he made on the perimeter negated his scoring bump.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 15.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.9

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his rotational minutes, failing to attempt meaningful shots or bend the defense. The lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to freely double-team primary ball-handlers, resulting in a steep negative impact (-7.1) while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Quinten Post 13.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than working the interior led to a highly inefficient offensive stint. His inability to connect from deep stalled out multiple possessions, actively harming the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.0

Extreme passivity characterized a brief and ineffective stint where he refused to look at the basket. Passing up open looks bogged down the offensive spacing, resulting in a mild negative impact during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 34.8m
29
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+15.6

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove a towering box score impact (+21.8). He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks for teammates, though a few live-ball turnovers slightly capped his total ceiling.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +22.8
Creation +4.3
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 34.3m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

A sharp drop in finishing efficiency plagued his offensive profile, missing several clean looks he had been converting easily over the past week. While his defensive rotations remained solid (+6.8), the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his overall net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 29.6m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Perimeter gravity kept his offensive baseline afloat, but defensive liabilities on switches severely undercut his overall value. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation sequences, bleeding away the points he generated from deep to result in a steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 29.5m
21
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.8

Dominating the interior matchups yielded a massive baseline box impact (+20.2) as he continually punished smaller defenders in the paint. He sustained a week-long streak of highly efficient finishing, anchoring the frontcourt with physical screens and high-value shot selection.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +14.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 28.9m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite defensive metrics (+14.3) and relentless hustle completely salvaged a rough shooting night where he struggled to finish around the rim. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and generate extra possessions (+7.5 hustle) kept his overall impact positive despite the offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +10.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Punishing physicality around the basket and disciplined shot selection fueled a highly efficient two-way performance. His ability to anchor the second-unit defense (+5.4) while converting dump-off passes at a premium rate maximized his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 17.5m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Downhill pressure in transition sequences helped generate a respectable positive impact in limited action. He avoided costly mistakes and played within the flow of the offense, providing a stable spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Stifling point-of-attack defense (+5.7) defined this outing, completely disrupting the opponent's perimeter rhythm. Even with a dip in his recent scoring volume, his ability to navigate screens and force difficult shots drove a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Active hands and solid rotational energy (+2.5 hustle) couldn't completely mask his ongoing struggles to find efficient scoring angles. Rushed attempts in traffic continue to limit his offensive ceiling, keeping his overall impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Minimal court time prevented him from establishing any real rhythm, resulting in a slight negative impact. He was largely invisible during his brief rotational stint, failing to generate the chaotic defensive energy he usually provides.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0