Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell 9/19 -1.9
Harden Hard 8/14 +4.4
Merrill Hard 7/12 +8.3
Mobley 6/11 +0.8
Schröder 3/9 -1.9
Ellis 4/7 +1.2
Tyson 2/7 -2.6
Allen Open 4/6 +1.3
Tomlin 0/3 -3.4
Wade Hard 0/1 -1.1

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Wallace 7/17 -0.1
Holmgren 5/14 -5.6
Joe Hard 6/13 +4.8
Dort Hard 5/11 +0.9
McCain 3/7 +0.2
Wiggins 3/7 -0.8
Hartenstein Open 6/6 +5.3
Williams Hard 3/6 +2.2
Williams 3/3 +4.4
Topić Open 1/2 -0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
OKC
43/89 Field Goals 42/86
48.3% Field Goal % 48.8%
13/39 3-Pointers 21/41
33.3% 3-Point % 51.2%
14/19 Free Throws 16/25
73.7% Free Throw % 64.0%
58.0% True Shooting % 62.4%
54 Total Rebounds 50
12 Offensive 13
32 Defensive 31
28 Assists 32
1.65 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
17 Turnovers 16
9 Steals 12
3 Blocks 4
22 Fouls 19
56 Points in Paint 40
21 Fast Break Pts 17
12 Points off TOs 31
8 Second Chance Pts 17
47 Bench Points 37
1 Largest Lead 23
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cason Wallace
20 PTS · 4 REB · 10 AST · 33.8 MIN
+23.38
2
Isaiah Joe
22 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 30.3 MIN
+21.03
3
Sam Merrill
20 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 28.5 MIN
+16.08
4
Chet Holmgren
17 PTS · 15 REB · 4 AST · 34.4 MIN
+15.45
5
Donovan Mitchell
20 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 35.1 MIN
+13.22
6
Jarrett Allen
11 PTS · 13 REB · 2 AST · 28.6 MIN
+12.82
7
Isaiah Hartenstein
13 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 25.7 MIN
+10.86
8
James Harden
20 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 33.8 MIN
+10.6
9
Jared McCain
10 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 15.8 MIN
+9.7
10
Dennis Schröder
11 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 22.3 MIN
+9.46
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 C. Holmgren REBOUND (Off:2 Def:13) 113–121
Q4 0:03 MISS D. Mitchell running 3PT 113–121
Q4 0:05 J. Harden REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 113–121
Q4 0:09 MISS C. Holmgren Free Throw 2 of 2 113–121
Q4 0:09 C. Holmgren Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 113–121
Q4 0:09 K. Ellis personal FOUL (2 PF) (Holmgren 2 FT) 113–120
Q4 0:09 C. Holmgren REBOUND (Off:2 Def:12) 113–120
Q4 0:13 MISS S. Merrill 26' 3PT 113–120
Q4 0:18 C. Holmgren Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 113–120
Q4 0:18 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–119
Q4 0:18 MISS C. Holmgren Free Throw 1 of 2 113–119
Q4 0:18 E. Mobley personal FOUL (4 PF) (Holmgren 2 FT) 113–119
Q4 0:19 C. Holmgren REBOUND (Off:2 Def:11) 113–119
Q4 0:21 MISS I. Hartenstein Free Throw 2 of 2 113–119
Q4 0:21 I. Hartenstein Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 113–119

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Luguentz Dort 35.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite solid defensive metrics (+3.3) and aggressive offensive volume, hidden mistakes absolutely cratered his overall impact rating (-9.4). This severe disconnect suggests a high volume of costly fouls or live-ball turnovers that directly fueled the opponent's transition attack. His physical point-of-attack defense ultimately crossed the line into detrimental territory too often.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 34.4m
17
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

An absolute masterclass in rim protection (+9.4 defense) salvaged what was otherwise a rough offensive outing. He struggled mightily to find his touch around the basket, missing a slew of contested hooks that dragged down his efficiency. However, his sheer length and timing as a weak-side helper erased enough opponent layups to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.4
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 33.8m
20
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.9

Masterful offensive orchestration combined with tenacious point-of-attack defense (+7.3) resulted in a dominant overall rating. He controlled the tempo flawlessly, generating high-quality looks for teammates while knocking down crucial momentum-swinging jumpers to keep the defense honest. His relentless energy (+6.1 hustle) in fighting over screens set the physical tone for the entire backcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Joe 30.3m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.6

A lethal combination of elite floor spacing and suffocating perimeter defense (+9.7) drove a massive positive impact. He relentlessly punished drop coverages by launching a barrage of high-efficiency daggers from beyond the arc. Furthermore, his constant off-ball activity and hustle (+5.8) disrupted passing lanes, making him a two-way terror all night.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Perfect finishing on the interior generated a strong box score rating, yet his overall impact flatlined at exactly neutral. This indicates that while he capitalized on every offensive touch, he likely surrendered just as much value through poor pick-and-roll coverage or defensive rebounding lapses. His flawless shooting night was entirely offset by the points he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +7.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.7

A failure to string together stops on the defensive end neutralized his otherwise steady offensive flow. He was frequently targeted in isolation matchups, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the team's defensive shell. Despite decent hustle numbers, his inability to stay in front of his man resulted in a detrimental overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Flawless shot selection and opportunistic scoring drove a highly effective shift. He took exactly what the defense gave him, punishing late closeouts without ever hijacking the offensive flow. Combined with solid positional defense (+2.0), his mistake-free basketball provided a steadying presence for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Although he stretched the floor effectively with his pick-and-pop spacing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to interior vulnerabilities. He struggled to anchor the paint against physical drives, likely bleeding points through late rotations or lost rebounding battles. His perimeter shot-making simply couldn't cover up the defensive leaks on the inside.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -49.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jared McCain 15.8m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Smart shot selection and steady perimeter defense (+4.3) anchored a highly productive stint off the bench. He didn't force the issue offensively, opting instead to punish late defensive rotations with perfectly timed outside shots. This disciplined, mistake-free approach maximized his value during crucial second-unit minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.7

A disastrously brief stint was defined by poor defensive execution (-1.2) and stalling the half-court offense. He looked overwhelmed by the game's pace, likely committing rapid-fire turnovers or fouls that immediately put his team at a disadvantage. The coaching staff had to pull him quickly as his mistakes rapidly compounded.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
20
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

A brutal night from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive efficiency, as he bricked every single look he took from deep. He tried to compensate with aggressive perimeter defense (+6.3) and solid hustle (+3.5), but the empty possessions from the outside were too costly. His shot selection ultimately dragged an otherwise well-rounded performance into the red.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S James Harden 33.8m
20
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.6

Despite highly efficient perimeter shooting that boosted his raw box score, his overall impact plunged into the negative (-5.0). This stark divergence suggests costly live-ball turnovers and defensive breakdowns at the point of attack that fed opponent transition opportunities. His offensive creation simply couldn't outpace the hidden costs of his ball-handling errors.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jarrett Allen 28.6m
11
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

Elite rim protection and relentless interior activity fueled a massive defensive (+5.7) and hustle (+5.0) rating. Even with his offensive usage dipping below his recent average, his shot selection remained pristine by exclusively taking high-percentage looks in the restricted area. He dominated the glass to secure extra possessions, anchoring the team's interior presence from start to finish.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +15.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 25.2m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Continued a highly efficient finishing streak around the rim, driving a strong positive box score impact (+10.6). His defensive rotations and active hands generated substantial hustle value (+3.5) that kept the frontcourt stabilized. The only thing capping his overall score was a tendency to settle for low-percentage outside looks rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 17.7m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

A complete lack of offensive aggression cratered his overall impact, as he was entirely invisible on that end of the floor during his shift. While he provided a slight positive bump in hustle metrics (+1.0), his passivity on the perimeter allowed defenders to freely sag off him. This offensive disappearing act ruined any marginal defensive value he brought to the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Sam Merrill 28.5m
20
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.6

A barrage of perimeter daggers drove a massive box score spike (+17.0) as he punished defenders for going under screens. His off-ball movement constantly warped the opposing defense, creating a gravitational pull that opened up the floor. A slight negative grade on the defensive end (-0.2) barely dented the immense value of his floor-spacing gravity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +16.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 23.4m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Smothering defensive pressure (+6.7) and relentless energy (+4.5 hustle) defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He capitalized on his limited offensive touches by taking strictly in-rhythm shots, avoiding the empty possessions that plague role players. This disciplined approach on both ends made him an essential glue guy during crucial rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.1

Pesky point-of-attack defense (+4.8) kept him viable, but clunky offensive execution held his net impact below zero. He forced too many contested looks in the mid-range, resulting in a poor shooting clip that stalled half-court momentum. While his playmaking generated decent looks for others, his own inefficient finishing negated those gains.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 15.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A sharp regression in shot-making efficiency tanked his offensive value after a recent hot streak. He managed to stay afloat through active perimeter defense (+3.8) and decent hustle metrics, preventing a total collapse in his net rating. However, clanking several wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities ultimately left his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

Bleeding points on the defensive end (-1.7) and putting up entirely empty offensive possessions created a disastrous short-shift impact. He looked lost in rotation, frequently giving up driving lanes that compromised the interior defense. A few hustle plays couldn't mask the damage caused by his overall lack of execution.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0