Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 184 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama Hard 8/17 +0.9
Fox Hard 11/16 +9.3
Johnson 8/13 +3.3
Castle 3/11 -5.8
Harper 6/10 +1.4
Barnes 4/8 -1.3
Vassell Hard 2/8 -3.1
Bryant 2/5 -0.7
Champagnie Hard 0/3 -3.2
Kornet Open 2/2 +1.2

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Green 6/14 -1.1
Moody Hard 6/12 +3.1
Podziemski Hard 5/12 -0.4
Payton II Hard 4/11 -2.0
Spencer 4/11 -3.2
Santos 4/11 -4.3
Melton Hard 6/7 +9.6
Horford Hard 3/7 -1.5
Post Hard 4/6 +4.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
GSW
46/93 Field Goals 42/91
49.5% Field Goal % 46.2%
10/39 3-Pointers 16/47
25.6% 3-Point % 34.0%
24/28 Free Throws 13/17
85.7% Free Throw % 76.5%
59.8% True Shooting % 57.4%
54 Total Rebounds 51
14 Offensive 10
30 Defensive 30
35 Assists 37
3.50 Assist/TO Ratio 3.08
9 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 6
5 Blocks 1
18 Fouls 24
60 Points in Paint 42
17 Fast Break Pts 14
15 Points off TOs 3
25 Second Chance Pts 17
57 Bench Points 44
13 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
De'Aaron Fox
27 PTS · 0 REB · 8 AST · 32.3 MIN
+27.65
2
Victor Wembanyama
26 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 33.5 MIN
+21.66
3
Keldon Johnson
21 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 29.3 MIN
+20.3
4
Dylan Harper
14 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 29.0 MIN
+16.4
5
De'Anthony Melton
17 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 25.1 MIN
+15.13
6
Brandin Podziemski
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 36.0 MIN
+14.27
7
Harrison Barnes
10 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 21.8 MIN
+12.61
8
Draymond Green
17 PTS · 12 REB · 8 AST · 29.7 MIN
+11.82
9
Moses Moody
17 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 35.0 MIN
+11.26
10
Gui Santos
9 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 29.8 MIN
+11.18
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 126–113
Q4 0:42 D. Harper REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 126–113
Q4 0:46 MISS G. Santos 27' 3PT 126–113
Q4 0:55 D. Fox running DUNK (27 PTS) 126–113
Q4 0:58 D. Fox STEAL (3 STL) 124–113
Q4 0:58 D. Green lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 124–113
Q4 1:04 V. Wembanyama Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 124–113
Q4 1:04 V. Wembanyama Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 123–113
Q4 1:04 M. Moody shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Wembanyama 2 FT) 122–113
Q4 1:21 K. Johnson STEAL (1 STL) 122–113
Q4 1:21 D. Green bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 122–113
Q4 1:27 K. Johnson 8' driving floating Jump Shot (21 PTS) (D. Fox 8 AST) 122–113
Q4 1:46 B. Podziemski cutting Layup (16 PTS) (D. Green 8 AST) 120–113
Q4 1:56 G. Santos STEAL (4 STL) 120–111
Q4 1:56 V. Wembanyama bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 120–111

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 Moses Moody 35.0m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Getting repeatedly hunted in isolation matchups tanked his defensive metrics and dragged down his overall score. Even with decent perimeter shot-making, the points he surrendered on the other end negated his offensive production. The lack of resistance at the point of attack was a glaring issue all night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -5.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pat Spencer 30.6m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

A heavy diet of contested floaters and missed layups completely derailed the team's offensive momentum during his shifts. Failing to capitalize on driving lanes resulted in empty trips that fed the opponent's transition game. Despite decent hustle, the offensive inefficiency created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gui Santos 29.8m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

Stellar off-ball defensive rotations kept his team in the fight, but clunky offensive execution held him back. Missing multiple open looks from deep allowed the defense to ignore him and shrink the floor. His defensive brilliance was unfortunately overshadowed by offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 29.7m
17
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.6

Forcing uncharacteristic volume from beyond the arc wasted possessions, but his defensive orchestration salvaged his overall impact. Relentless communication and elite help-side positioning stifled opponent drives. The gritty hustle plays ultimately outweighed the questionable shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +14.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.4

Scorching hot perimeter shooting punished the defense for going under screens and massively boosted his offensive value. Taking only high-value shots and converting them at a blistering rate maximized his floor time. Active hands on defense provided the perfect complement to his offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 121.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

High-motor rebounding and constant off-ball movement generated positive hustle metrics, but poor finishing at the rim mitigated those gains. Struggling to convert through contact left points on the board and stalled offensive runs. His relentless energy couldn't quite overcome the sheer volume of missed opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 26.4m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Firing blanks from the perimeter severely compromised the team's spacing and allowed his defender to roam the paint. While his veteran positioning yielded solid defensive metrics, the offensive stagnation he caused was too costly. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately cratered his overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.4

Uncharacteristic volume from deep led to a string of empty possessions, though his point-of-attack defense kept his head above water. Disrupting passing lanes and pressuring ball-handlers salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient shooting performance. The defensive tenacity barely outweighed the offensive misfires.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Quinten Post 13.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite pick-and-pop execution stretched the defense thin and provided a massive offensive jolt in limited minutes. Capitalizing on open perimeter looks generated high-value points that easily masked his slight defensive shortcomings. His shooting gravity completely altered the geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
26
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.7

Generational rim deterrence and massive defensive metrics drove a dominant overall rating. Even with a sloppy shot profile from beyond the arc, his sheer interior gravity warped the opponent's game plan. He completely controlled the painted area to offset those wasted perimeter possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 32.3m
27
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
+22.9

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll carved up the defense and skyrocketed his offensive metrics. Taking high-quality shots and converting at an elite clip ensured maximum value per possession. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 28.5m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Poor shot selection and perimeter bricklaying derailed the offensive rhythm, dragging his overall impact deep into the red. His inability to find the bottom of the net from deep stalled out half-court sets. The slight positive defensive metrics couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 21.5m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his assignments dragged down his overall rating. Forcing contested looks in the mid-range resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The hustle was present, but poor execution on both ends proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

High-end activity on the defensive end and relentless hustle plays kept him on the floor despite a complete offensive disappearing act. Generating zero gravity on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. Ultimately, the total lack of scoring punch outweighed his gritty defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

Bully-ball drives to the rim generated high-percentage looks and anchored his strong offensive rating. While his hustle metrics were completely flat, the sheer force of his downhill attacks collapsed the defense repeatedly. The scoring efficiency was more than enough to keep his overall impact comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 29.0m
14
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.8

Steady, high-IQ shot selection continues to be the bedrock of his positive impact. By avoiding forced actions and letting the offense come to him, he maximized his touches without bleeding value. Solid point-of-attack defense rounded out a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Blanking from beyond the arc severely limited his spacing value and cramped the half-court offense. A lack of defensive resistance allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. Ultimately, the missed perimeter opportunities outweighed his modest interior contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +63.7
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 15.3m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Elite screen-setting and relentless activity on the glass generated a massive hustle rating in a short stint. He never forced a bad look, playing perfectly within his role to maximize offensive flow. This disciplined approach and vertical spacing made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Aggressive weak-side rim protection provided an unexpected defensive spark during his brief time on the floor. Capitalizing on limited offensive touches with confident shot-making further amplified his positive rating. It was a highly productive burst of energy that swung momentum in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0