Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 165 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 10/26 -0.4
Smith Jr. 8/13 +5.3
Sengun 6/12 +1.1
Thompson Open 5/9 -0.9
Eason 4/8 +0.5
Sheppard Hard 3/5 +2.8
Finney-Smith 1/4 -3.1
Capela Open 1/2 -0.8
Tate Open 0/1 -1.4

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Anunoby 8/16 -1.3
Towns 10/15 +5.8
Brunson 6/12 +0.6
Bridges 5/11 +0.4
Alvarado 3/9 -3.1
Shamet 5/7 +3.6
Hart 1/7 -6.4
Robinson Open 3/5 -1.0
Sochan Hard 0/2 -1.9
Diawara Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
NYK
38/80 Field Goals 42/85
47.5% Field Goal % 49.4%
12/31 3-Pointers 10/26
38.7% 3-Point % 38.5%
18/23 Free Throws 14/16
78.3% Free Throw % 87.5%
58.8% True Shooting % 58.7%
57 Total Rebounds 36
13 Offensive 8
31 Defensive 21
24 Assists 26
1.20 Assist/TO Ratio 2.17
19 Turnovers 11
5 Steals 11
6 Blocks 0
20 Fouls 19
50 Points in Paint 48
14 Fast Break Pts 23
15 Points off TOs 30
10 Second Chance Pts 15
16 Bench Points 30
18 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
OG Anunoby
20 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 40.3 MIN
+21.09
2
Karl-Anthony Towns
25 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 34.1 MIN
+21.01
3
Amen Thompson
12 PTS · 10 REB · 7 AST · 41.3 MIN
+18.24
4
Jabari Smith Jr.
21 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 35.6 MIN
+17.92
5
Jose Alvarado
8 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 19.8 MIN
+16.08
6
Landry Shamet
14 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 26.0 MIN
+11.5
7
Tari Eason
11 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+10.9
8
Mikal Bridges
11 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 31.5 MIN
+10.72
9
Kevin Durant
30 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 38.3 MIN
+10.13
10
Jalen Brunson
20 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 35.6 MIN
+9.26
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 106–108
Q4 0:00 MISS K. Durant 40' bank 3PT 106–108
Q4 0:01 L. Shamet Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 106–108
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 106–107
Q4 0:01 MISS L. Shamet Free Throw 1 of 2 106–107
Q4 0:01 R. Sheppard take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Shamet 2 FT) 106–107
Q4 0:02 K. Durant 25' 3PT pullup (30 PTS) 106–107
Q4 0:05 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 103–107
Q4 0:05 O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 103–106
Q4 0:05 D. Finney-Smith take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 103–105
Q4 0:06 K. Durant take personal FOUL (3 PF) 103–105
Q4 0:14 K. Towns REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 103–105
Q4 0:15 MISS J. Smith Jr. 24' 3PT 103–105
Q4 0:16 T. Eason REBOUND (Off:4 Def:8) 103–105
Q4 0:19 MISS K. Durant 18' pullup Shot 103–105

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Karl-Anthony Towns actually won the night
25 points, 7 boards, 1 assist was the line. The lift came from scoring (+21.4), hustle (+6.0), and shot-making (+6.0), pushing Net Impact to +17.7.
Scoring +21.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +6.0
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +6.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jalen Brunson too hard
20 points, 3 boards, 6 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1) and defense (-3.7), pulling Net Impact down to +2.7.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +0.9
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
hidden value
Jose Alvarado's value was hiding in plain sight
8 points, 1 board, 4 assists undersells it. defense (+11.6), scoring (+3.0), and shot-making (+2.3) pushed his Net Impact to +6.7.
Defense +11.6
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Scoring +3.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +2.3
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Alperen Sengun too hard
16 points, 6 boards, 6 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-14.9), pulling Net Impact down to +0.9.
Turnovers -14.9
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense +1.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.2
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 40.3m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.0

Suffocating wing defense completely neutralized his primary assignment, powering a monstrous +11.0 defensive impact score. He paired that lockdown effort with relentless off-ball movement, generating extra possessions through sheer hustle (+6.7). This was a masterclass in two-way wing play that dictated the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 35.6m
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.7

Unrelenting rim pressure and elite foul-drawing manipulation kept the offense afloat, generating a massive +9.8 hustle rating. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, forcing rotations and creating high-quality looks for teammates. Even without his outside shot falling, his sheer persistence in the paint dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
25
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.7

Surgical precision from the perimeter forced opposing bigs out of the paint, stretching the defense to its breaking point. He capitalized on every mismatch in the pick-and-pop, driving a massive +11.2 total impact through flawless shot selection. His defensive positioning (+4.5) was equally disciplined, avoiding cheap fouls while contesting the rim.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 31.4m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

A quiet offensive night failed to move the needle, resulting in a slightly negative overall impact (-1.6). He struggled to assert himself against physical perimeter coverage, often settling for contested mid-range looks rather than pressuring the rim. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the lack of aggressive downhill play limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 27.1m
2
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.5

Offensive spacing completely collapsed when he was on the floor, as defenders blatantly ignored him to clog the driving lanes. Those bricked perimeter looks and forced drives tanked his overall impact (-13.0) despite his typically sturdy defensive rotations (+5.2). The lack of scoring gravity made the half-court offense painfully predictable.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying open catch-and-shoot looks, providing a crucial floor-spacing element for the second unit. This hyper-efficient scoring burst forced opponents to abandon their zone concepts. He stayed within his role perfectly, avoiding forced shots to deliver a clean, positive impact (+1.6).

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Absolute chaos creation at the point of attack fueled a staggering +11.1 defensive impact score. He relentlessly hounded opposing ball-handlers, blowing up dribble hand-offs and generating momentum-shifting transition opportunities (+5.2 Hustle). Even with a streaky shooting line, his sheer disruptive energy completely changed the complexion of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +11.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Uncharacteristic struggles defending the pick-and-roll (-0.3 defensive impact) negated his usual vertical spacing presence. Opposing guards consistently dragged him away from the rim, neutralizing his shot-blocking threat and exposing him in space. Despite finishing his few looks around the basket, the defensive compromises kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

A disastrously brief stint was marred by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that immediately killed offensive momentum (-4.0 Total Impact). He looked completely lost within the offensive flow, rushing his decisions against set coverage. The coaching staff had to hook him almost immediately to stop the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Logged a quick rotational shift but struggled with defensive positioning (-0.8 Def), allowing easy baseline penetration. He managed to convert his only look at the rim, but the defensive lapses prevented him from earning a longer leash. A mostly invisible performance in garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.3m
12
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined this marathon shift, yielding an elite +9.2 defensive impact score. He consistently disrupted opposing passing lanes and turned deflections into transition fuel. Even with a slight dip in scoring volume, his athletic rim pressure and defensive versatility kept the rotation afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +12.7
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 38.3m
30
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.7

High-volume isolation sets cratered his overall efficiency, as he forced too many contested jumpers against set defenses. Despite the gaudy scoring total, the sheer number of empty possessions (-6.7 Total Impact) killed offensive momentum. His inability to generate easy looks ultimately dragged down the starting unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Crisp perimeter shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive outing that broke him out of a recent shooting slump. He compounded that perimeter gravity with excellent weak-side rotations, driving a strong +3.6 defensive impact. This was a quintessential 3-and-D performance that perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tari Eason 34.7m
11
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Relentless energy on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities, reflected in a robust +4.5 hustle rating. However, erratic decision-making in transition likely suppressed his overall net impact into the red. His physical tools were evident, but a lack of polish on fast breaks limited his ultimate effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +15.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 31.4m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

Elite positional awareness in drop coverage anchored a massive +9.4 defensive impact score. While his scoring volume dipped slightly from recent trends, his ability to operate as an offensive hub out of the high post kept the half-court offense humming. He dominated the interior matchups without needing to force his own shot.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 6
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack (-1.3 defensive impact) outweighed a highly efficient perimeter shooting display. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end. He knocked down open looks, but the structural damage to the team's defensive shell kept his overall impact negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.7

An absolute cratering of overall impact (-15.7) stemmed from blown defensive assignments and an ongoing crisis of confidence on the perimeter. He was repeatedly late on closeouts, yielding a dismal -3.3 defensive score. Continuing a brutal multi-game shooting slump, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to openly pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 11.3m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Maximized a brief stint off the bench by completely sealing off the paint, driving a stellar +4.0 defensive rating in just over a quarter of action. He provided immediate vertical spacing as a lob threat, forcing the defense to collapse. This short burst of rim-running and rim-protection was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +51.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a very brief rotation cameo, resulting in a quick -2.3 net impact. A rushed attempt in the paint and a lack of defensive disruption made him a non-factor. The coaching staff pulled the plug before he could settle into any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -52.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0