Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead DEN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DEN 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 205 attempts

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray 15/33 -1.5
Jokić 10/27 -8.5
Watson 4/13 -4.9
Brown Hard 4/9 +1.0
Hardaway Jr. Hard 6/8 +6.9
Braun Open 2/6 -3.9
Strawther 4/5 +4.5
Jones Hard 0/3 -3.1
Valančiūnas Open 1/1 +0.6

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 14/27 +6.8
Anunoby 7/17 -1.3
Shamet Hard 6/15 -0.8
Towns 9/13 +4.7
Bridges Hard 2/8 -3.9
Clarkson 5/7 +4.0
Robinson Open 5/5 +3.0
Diawara Hard 2/5 -0.6
Kolek Hard 0/1 -1.1
McCullar Jr. Open 0/1 -1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DEN
NYK
46/105 Field Goals 50/100
43.8% Field Goal % 50.0%
13/50 3-Pointers 18/50
26.0% 3-Point % 36.0%
22/27 Free Throws 16/19
81.5% Free Throw % 84.2%
54.3% True Shooting % 61.8%
65 Total Rebounds 53
15 Offensive 9
36 Defensive 36
29 Assists 28
1.81 Assist/TO Ratio 2.33
14 Turnovers 11
8 Steals 4
3 Blocks 2
21 Fouls 23
56 Points in Paint 46
13 Fast Break Pts 22
17 Points off TOs 20
24 Second Chance Pts 16
42 Bench Points 32
7 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Brunson
42 PTS · 8 REB · 9 AST · 47.0 MIN
+29.43
2
Nikola Jokić
30 PTS · 14 REB · 10 AST · 44.6 MIN
+25.54
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
24 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 31.0 MIN
+21.05
4
Jamal Murray
39 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 47.8 MIN
+20.4
5
Tim Hardaway Jr.
19 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 41.5 MIN
+18.9
6
OG Anunoby
20 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 48.0 MIN
+16.75
7
Mitchell Robinson
10 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 23.1 MIN
+12.81
8
Bruce Brown
10 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 37.7 MIN
+11.51
9
Landry Shamet
16 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 35.8 MIN
+8.02
10
Jordan Clarkson
11 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 23.7 MIN
+7.44
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q6 0:09 M. Robinson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 127–134
Q6 0:11 MISS J. Murray 25' pullup 3PT 127–134
Q6 0:18 J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 (42 PTS) 127–134
Q6 0:18 J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 (41 PTS) 127–133
Q6 0:18 J. Murray take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Brunson 2 FT) 127–132
Q6 0:22 N. Jokić take personal FOUL (4 PF) 127–132
Q6 0:25 J. Brunson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:8) 127–132
Q6 0:27 MISS N. Jokić 25' 3PT 127–132
Q6 0:30 J. Brunson 7' driving floating Jump Shot (40 PTS) 127–132
Q6 0:46 T. Hardaway Jr. 25' 3PT (19 PTS) (N. Jokić 10 AST) 127–130
Q6 0:48 N. Jokić REBOUND (Off:7 Def:7) 124–130
Q6 0:51 MISS C. Braun running 3PT 124–130
Q6 0:56 J. Murray REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 124–130
Q6 0:58 MISS O. Anunoby driving DUNK 124–130
Q6 1:16 N. Jokić Free Throw 3 of 3 (30 PTS) 124–130

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

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 48.5m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

An absolute offensive disappearing act cratered his overall value despite logging heavy minutes. Even with solid defensive grading (+5.2 Def), his inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers severely handicapped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.5m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 48.0m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

High-end hustle metrics (+6.0) and reliable floor spacing kept his impact in the green during a grueling workload. While his overall field goal efficiency dipped slightly, his timely perimeter shot-making punished defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +7.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 47.0m
42
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+27.5

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and elite shot-making fueled a massive positive impact. Beyond the scoring explosion, surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+8.0 Def) indicated he was fighting through screens and blowing up perimeter actions all night.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 36.6%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.0m
Scoring +31.8
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
24
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Hyper-efficient interior finishing drove a dominant offensive rating. He consistently exploited mismatches in the post, and his steady defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +12.3
Defense -5.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Clarkson 23.7m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Provided a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench, elevating his offensive baseline. However, a lack of defensive resistance and minimal supplementary hustle plays allowed opponents to score easily during his shifts, resulting in a slightly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Spaced the floor effectively with high-volume perimeter shooting, doubling his recent scoring average. Still, the sheer number of missed jumpers and a failure to pressure the rim kept his overall impact slightly below the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.8

Absolute dominance in the hustle categories (+8.7) and flawless interior finishing anchored a stellar performance. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities without wasting a single possession offensively made him highly impactful in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

Struggled to find a rhythm from beyond the arc, which stalled offensive momentum during his rotationally allotted time. Minimal contributions in hustle and defensive metrics meant there was nothing to offset the clunky shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 12.7m
1
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.2

Total offensive passivity doomed his stint on the floor. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed the defense to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

Burned through a very short stint with negative value due to empty offensive possessions. Failed to register any meaningful defensive or hustle stats to justify his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -154.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting garbage-time appearance. A single missed shot was the only notable event, leaving his impact score virtually neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 47.8m
39
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.3

A relentless shot diet yielded high scoring volume, but the sheer number of wasted perimeter possessions severely capped his net impact. Defensive engagement (+4.9 Def) helped offset the inefficiency of his isolation-heavy approach down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 15/33 (45.5%)
3PT 3/14 (21.4%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.8m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +8.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 44.6m
30
pts
14
reb
10
ast
Impact
+30.9

Massive offensive creation drove a highly positive overall rating, though it was heavily taxed by an uncharacteristically erratic shooting night from beyond the arc. Firing a barrage of perimeter shots and missing nearly all of them dragged his efficiency down, but his sheer gravitational pull kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 10/27 (37.0%)
3PT 1/13 (7.7%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +16.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Christian Braun 43.5m
6
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

A severe lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall value in this marathon outing. Passing up open looks and failing to pressure the rim resulted in a massive drop-off from his usual scoring output, leaving the team starved for secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 33.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Elite defensive activity (+6.9 Def) and relentless hustle plays nearly salvaged his overall rating. However, a steep drop in shooting efficiency—highlighted by a brutal string of misses from deep—ultimately flatlined his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 12.0m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Despite providing a solid defensive presence (+3.0 Def) and active hustle metrics, his complete inability to generate offense dragged his overall impact into the negative. Missing all of his perimeter looks disrupted the floor spacing during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Sizzling perimeter efficiency provided a massive scoring boost compared to his recent slump. Yet, a lack of supplementary hustle plays and rebounding involvement kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral despite the hot hand.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.9%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 37.7m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+9.6 Def) was the defining characteristic of his night. Unfortunately, a relatively muted offensive output and a slight dip in his normally reliable finishing prevented him from achieving a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump with highly efficient, opportunistic scoring bursts. Combined with active rotations that generated positive defensive metrics, his bench minutes provided a crucial two-way spark.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-19.4

Defensive liabilities (-2.3 Def) and a complete lack of offensive involvement rendered his brief stint highly detrimental. Opponents easily exploited his lack of mobility in drop coverage, forcing an early exit from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2