Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead OKC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
OKC 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Holmgren Hard 11/19 +8.6
Gilgeous-Alexander Open 9/16 +0.9
Dort Hard 4/9 +1.5
Williams Hard 2/6 -0.4
Wallace 2/6 -3.5
McCain Hard 1/5 -2.3
Joe Hard 0/5 -4.8
Wiggins 2/4 +0.6
Williams Hard 1/2 +0.8
Caruso Hard 1/1 +1.9

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 5/18 -4.9
Anunoby Hard 6/17 -2.8
Bridges 6/17 -4.8
Hart Open 4/11 -5.4
Shamet 5/9 -0.9
Towns Open 7/8 +3.6
Diawara Hard 3/4 +4.6
Alvarado 1/4 -2.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
OKC
NYK
33/73 Field Goals 37/88
45.2% Field Goal % 42.0%
16/42 3-Pointers 10/35
38.1% 3-Point % 28.6%
21/25 Free Throws 16/22
84.0% Free Throw % 72.7%
61.3% True Shooting % 51.2%
46 Total Rebounds 56
3 Offensive 12
35 Defensive 36
21 Assists 23
1.31 Assist/TO Ratio 1.64
15 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 5
0 Blocks 3
22 Fouls 24
20 Points in Paint 46
2 Fast Break Pts 14
14 Points off TOs 23
10 Second Chance Pts 20
29 Bench Points 26
15 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
17 PTS · 17 REB · 1 AST · 32.5 MIN
+24.99
2
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
26 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 35.5 MIN
+19.61
3
Chet Holmgren
28 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 32.1 MIN
+17.54
4
Cason Wallace
4 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 29.4 MIN
+10.99
5
Jalen Brunson
16 PTS · 3 REB · 15 AST · 38.6 MIN
+9.35
6
OG Anunoby
16 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 37.7 MIN
+8.07
7
Landry Shamet
14 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 31.0 MIN
+7.74
8
Mohamed Diawara
9 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 13.3 MIN
+6.68
9
Alex Caruso
3 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 11.8 MIN
+6.53
10
Mikal Bridges
15 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 39.6 MIN
+5.68
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 103–100
Q4 0:00 MISS O. Anunoby 27' turnaround 3PT 103–100
Q4 0:00 M. Bridges REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 103–100
Q4 0:03 MISS J. Brunson 3PT 103–100
Q4 0:15 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:0 Def:12) 103–100
Q4 0:17 MISS C. Holmgren 7' turnaround Shot 103–100
Q4 0:40 J. Brunson 14' turnaround Jump Shot (16 PTS) 103–100
Q4 0:51 L. Dort offensive foul TURNOVER (3 TO) 103–98
Q4 0:51 L. Dort charge offensive FOUL (6 PF) 103–98
Q4 1:08 J. Hart Layup (10 PTS) (J. Brunson 15 AST) 103–98
Q4 1:18 S. Gilgeous-Alexander 25' 3PT step back (26 PTS) 103–96
Q4 1:32 J. Hart Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 100–96
Q4 1:32 J. Hart Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 100–95
Q4 1:32 C. Wallace shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Hart 2 FT) 100–94
Q4 1:41 L. Dort loose ball personal FOUL (5 PF) 100–94

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 39.6m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Forcing contested jumpers against set defenses cratered his overall impact, resulting in a damaging -7.5 rating. Though he provided adequate perimeter resistance (+2.7 Def), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. Poor shot selection ultimately defined this highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 38.6m
16
pts
3
reb
15
ast
Impact
+5.6

Overcame a miserable shooting night by transforming into an elite floor general and hustle machine (+15.5). His constant dribble penetration collapsed the defense, allowing him to orchestrate open looks for teammates while fighting relentlessly for loose balls. This performance proved that high-IQ playmaking and sheer effort can completely override a broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 37.7m
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting threatened to sink his value, but a phenomenal defensive effort (+9.1 Def) salvaged his overall rating. He locked down the point of attack and generated extra possessions through sheer willpower (+8.9 Hustle). The two-way disparity was glaring, yet his defensive motor ultimately outweighed the clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
17
pts
17
reb
1
ast
Impact
+29.5

Total domination of the painted area drove an astronomical +27.4 box score impact. By operating with ruthless efficiency around the basket and refusing to settle for bad looks, he completely dictated the terms of engagement. This interior clinic anchored the team and resulted in a massive overall positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +20.6
Defense -4.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 24.9m
10
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Errant shooting from deep and likely spacing issues clogged the offense, resulting in a negative overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. While he secured the glass effectively, his inability to punish closeouts allowed defenders to cheat off him. The lack of offensive flow ultimately punished his bottom-line rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Timely off-ball movement and decisive shot-making provided a crucial offensive spark, reflected in a strong +11.1 box score metric. He compounded this scoring punch with surprising grit on 50/50 balls (+6.2 Hustle) to keep possessions alive. Capitalizing on defensive lapses made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Punished defensive rotations with highly efficient catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter. This floor-spacing gravity, combined with disciplined closeouts on the other end (+2.8 Def), yielded a steady positive impact. He played perfectly within his role, taking exactly what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Getting hunted on defensive switches (-1.5 Def) and failing to generate any disruptive hustle plays completely neutralized his usual value. Compounding the issue, his errant perimeter shooting stalled out half-court sets and fueled opponent transition opportunities. A distinct lack of energy resulted in a punishing -8.4 net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.5

Complete invisibility on the offensive end allowed the opposing frontcourt to roam freely, severely damaging his overall impact (-4.5). While he showed flashes of activity in rim protection (+1.3 Def), playing as a non-threat with the ball crippled the team's spacing. The lack of interior pressure was too glaring to ignore.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +43.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Managed to squeeze out a marginal positive impact (+0.5) during a fleeting appearance thanks to immediate energy on the margins (+1.2 Hustle). The sample size was too small for any meaningful offensive or defensive rhythm to materialize.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +125.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.3
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
26
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.3

Surgical penetration and elite finishing drove a massive positive rating, constantly forcing defensive rotations. He supplemented his primary scoring role with active hands in passing lanes (+3.0 Def) and timely hustle plays. The sheer gravity of his drives dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 32.7m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite a significant scoring surge above his recent average, his overall impact plummeted due to severe defensive lapses (-2.4 Def). Poor perimeter containment and likely foul trouble negated the value of his outside shooting. The offensive volume simply masked how much he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 32.1m
28
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.9

Elite shot selection and floor-stretching completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme, driving a massive +17.7 box score impact. He paired this offensive explosion with high-level rim protection (+3.5 Def) to anchor the interior. This two-way dominance defined the matchup and fueled his outstanding overall rating.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 29.4m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined this outing, yielding an astronomical +9.9 defensive rating. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to connect, his constant ball-denial and elite hustle (+6.2) disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He proved that pure defensive intensity can salvage a rough shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Total offensive passivity erased the value of his otherwise excellent defensive positioning (+4.2 Def). By refusing to look at the rim, he allowed the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him and crowd the paint. His active hands and hustle plays simply couldn't overcome playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 23.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

Missing every attempt from beyond the arc destroyed his floor-spacing value and allowed the defense to pack the paint. This lack of offensive gravity, combined with neutral defensive resistance, resulted in a disastrous -10.0 net impact. Even solid hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite efficient situational scoring, hidden mistakes like mistimed rotations and likely turnovers dragged his overall impact into the negative. He struggled to string together consecutive stops, mitigating the value of his selective offensive approach. The underlying metrics suggest he gave up more in transition than he created in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Solid positional defense (+2.9 Def) kept him afloat, but inefficient offensive execution dragged his overall impact slightly below neutral. Settling for heavily contested looks from the outside limited his playmaking value. He provided decent energy but lacked the offensive rhythm needed to swing the game.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 15.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Cold perimeter shooting severely hampered his overall effectiveness, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While he showed decent effort on rotations (+2.5 Def), the inability to punish closeouts dragged his net impact firmly into the red. His offensive struggles ultimately outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -57.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 11.8m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

A masterclass in off-ball impact generated a massive +8.5 overall rating in under 12 minutes of action. Elite screen navigation (+5.4 Def) and relentless loose-ball recoveries (+6.6 Hustle) completely derailed the opponent's second unit. He didn't need to shoot to completely flip the momentum of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Completely changed the game's energy during a brief stint, driven almost entirely by elite hustle (+6.5). Crashing the glass and keeping possessions alive masked his lack of offensive volume. This hyper-efficient burst of activity proved exactly why high-motor players swing tight margins.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +79.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0