Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DAL lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
DAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 192 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Fox Hard 7/16 +0.5
Wembanyama Hard 9/14 +7.8
Castle 8/13 +1.9
Vassell 5/12 -2.9
Champagnie 4/12 -3.6
Johnson Open 5/9 -0.2
Barnes Hard 5/7 +7.4
Harper Open 3/7 -2.2
Bryant Open 1/3 -1.4
McLaughlin Hard 1/2 +0.7

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 14/27 +3.5
Marshall 12/21 +5.8
Christie Hard 7/15 0.0
Nembhard 2/9 -3.8
Gafford Open 5/8 -1.0
Thompson Hard 2/8 -3.2
Martin 3/4 +2.8
Kelly Hard 2/3 +2.0
Cisse Open 0/2 -2.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
DAL
48/95 Field Goals 47/97
50.5% Field Goal % 48.5%
17/41 3-Pointers 12/31
41.5% 3-Point % 38.7%
22/25 Free Throws 17/20
88.0% Free Throw % 85.0%
63.7% True Shooting % 58.1%
58 Total Rebounds 47
11 Offensive 7
39 Defensive 34
34 Assists 23
2.43 Assist/TO Ratio 2.56
13 Turnovers 9
7 Steals 9
7 Blocks 8
18 Fouls 20
60 Points in Paint 54
19 Fast Break Pts 10
15 Points off TOs 6
16 Second Chance Pts 10
44 Bench Points 15
13 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Victor Wembanyama
29 PTS · 11 REB · 6 AST · 34.5 MIN
+30.36
2
Cooper Flagg
32 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 38.5 MIN
+27.0
3
Daniel Gafford
16 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+25.5
4
Naji Marshall
32 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 38.8 MIN
+25.49
5
Stephon Castle
18 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 21.7 MIN
+21.23
6
Max Christie
20 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 37.7 MIN
+16.44
7
Keldon Johnson
12 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 19.1 MIN
+14.34
8
Devin Vassell
12 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 30.1 MIN
+12.64
9
Harrison Barnes
19 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 34.4 MIN
+12.6
10
Julian Champagnie
14 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 27.3 MIN
+9.6
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:22 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 135–123
Q4 0:44 S. Castle REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 135–123
Q4 0:48 MISS N. Marshall 24' pullup 3PT 135–123
Q4 0:53 S. Castle tip DUNK (18 PTS) 135–123
Q4 0:53 S. Castle REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 133–123
Q4 0:54 MISS V. Wembanyama running 3PT 133–123
Q4 0:58 D. Fox REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 133–123
Q4 1:00 MISS C. Flagg 13' step back Shot 133–123
Q4 1:09 V. Wembanyama Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 133–123
Q4 1:09 V. Wembanyama Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 132–123
Q4 1:09 D. Gafford shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Wembanyama 2 FT) 131–123
Q4 1:17 D. Fox REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 131–123
Q4 1:19 MISS M. Christie 25' pullup 3PT 131–123
Q4 1:24 D. Fox 3PT (17 PTS) (V. Wembanyama 6 AST) 131–123
Q4 1:39 N. Marshall Free Throw 2 of 2 (32 PTS) 128–123

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 38.8m
32
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.5

Torched defensive coverages by exploiting mismatches in the mid-post and converting at a high clip from deep. While his scoring explosion carried the offense for long stretches, a lack of secondary playmaking and average point-of-attack defense muted his overall statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +8.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 38.5m
32
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+25.4

Carried a massive offensive burden with relentless rim pressure, consistently beating primary defenders off the dribble to create advantages. His elite weak-side rim protection further amplified his value, proving he can anchor a unit on both ends despite the heavy usage.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +23.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Max Christie 37.7m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded a surprising offensive outburst, though a barrage of clanked perimeter looks kept his net impact hovering near zero. Exceptional hustle in transition defense prevented his erratic shot selection from becoming a true liability.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 33.0m
16
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.2

Completely sealed off the paint with masterful drop coverage and explosive shot-blocking. By strictly adhering to a diet of lobs and put-backs, he maximized his offensive efficiency while serving as an impenetrable anchor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +11.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 31.6m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Devastating live-ball turnovers and poor rotational discipline completely erased the benefits of his highly efficient shot profile. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during a disastrous third-quarter stretch, hemorrhaging points that cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.7

Forced contested looks early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive possessions and fueling opponent transition opportunities. His inability to create separation against younger wings resulted in a dreadful shooting display that severely dragged down the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.8

Struggled mightily to finish through contact, wasting multiple drives with wild attempts in the paint. Although he orchestrated the offense well enough to rack up assists, his sheer inefficiency as a scorer allowed defenders to duck under screens and blow up plays.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 11.7m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

Offensive limitations were glaringly exposed as he clogged the paint and failed to convert point-blank opportunities. Even with adequate rim protection during his brief stint, his inability to function as a viable roll man derailed the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Maximized a brief rotational window by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down an in-rhythm jumper. His disciplined shot selection and mistake-free execution provided a clean, positive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Logged just over two minutes of action before being quickly subbed out. A quick defensive miscommunication during that fleeting appearance resulted in a minor negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -173.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -1.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
29
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+31.4

Utterly dominated the interior while simultaneously stretching the floor with elite, disciplined shot selection. His massive defensive footprint deterred drives all night, anchoring a highly efficient two-way performance that dictated the game's entire tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +24.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +14.0
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 34.4m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Searing accuracy from the corners masked a glaring lack of physical engagement on the glass. Despite catching fire to easily eclipse his recent scoring averages, his failure to secure defensive rebounds allowed crucial second-chance opportunities that neutralized his offensive surge.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 31.9m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.9

Defensive lapses at the point of attack proved costly, allowing opposing guards to consistently break the paint and collapse the scheme. While he found some rhythm navigating high ball screens, the defensive bleeding and forced mid-range attempts ultimately tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.1m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

A complete power outage from beyond the arc undermined an otherwise steady defensive shift. By forcing flat-footed jumpers late in the shot clock, he squandered offensive possessions and dragged his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Inefficient perimeter shooting severely capped his overall effectiveness, as he settled for contested looks from deep rather than attacking closeouts. The defensive metrics remained solid, but his inability to convert quality spacing opportunities resulted in a net-negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.5

Smothering on-ball pressure set the tone during a crucial second-half stretch, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. He capitalized on those defensive stops by slashing efficiently in transition, cementing a stellar two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Dylan Harper 19.2m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Active hands in passing lanes and relentless loose-ball pursuits kept his impact in the green despite a noticeable dip in scoring volume. He maintained his impressive streak of efficient shot selection by refusing to force contested looks when the primary action broke down.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless downhill attacking created high-percentage looks at the rim and forced the opposing defense into heavy rotations. This disciplined, paint-focused shot profile combined with sturdy weak-side help to generate a highly efficient burst off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.3

Offensive passivity severely limited his usefulness, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense rather than threatening the defense. Even with commendable effort on loose balls, his reluctance to attack the rim allowed defenders to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence during a quick rotational stint in the backcourt. A well-timed perimeter strike ensured his short time on the floor yielded a marginal positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0