Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Post 9/16 +3.8
Podziemski 8/15 +1.7
Payton II 8/13 +3.6
Santos Open 7/12 +1.1
Spencer 3/8 -1.8
Leons Open 1/7 -6.8
Richard 2/3 +1.6
Cryer Hard 1/3 -0.2
Yurtseven Open 0/3 -3.9
Williams Open 1/2 -0.8

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 9/20 +1.4
Towns Open 7/12 -0.2
Clarkson 6/11 +1.0
Shamet Hard 3/10 -3.0
Bridges 3/10 -4.1
Anunoby 3/6 +0.8
Hart 3/6 +0.2
Diawara 1/4 -1.2
Alvarado Open 2/3 +0.3
Robinson Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
NYK
40/82 Field Goals 39/84
48.8% Field Goal % 46.4%
14/38 3-Pointers 10/32
36.8% 3-Point % 31.2%
13/15 Free Throws 22/23
86.7% Free Throw % 95.7%
60.4% True Shooting % 58.4%
40 Total Rebounds 51
11 Offensive 16
24 Defensive 28
27 Assists 23
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 1.53
18 Turnovers 15
9 Steals 9
6 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 15
46 Points in Paint 44
6 Fast Break Pts 15
22 Points off TOs 21
17 Second Chance Pts 18
33 Bench Points 35
21 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Brunson
30 PTS · 1 REB · 9 AST · 35.7 MIN
+24.63
2
Gary Payton II
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 27.7 MIN
+23.57
3
Brandin Podziemski
25 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 37.2 MIN
+17.61
4
Karl-Anthony Towns
17 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 30.7 MIN
+17.17
5
Gui Santos
20 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 31.8 MIN
+16.24
6
Mitchell Robinson
4 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 17.0 MIN
+14.69
7
Quinten Post
22 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 35.4 MIN
+11.99
8
OG Anunoby
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 29.3 MIN
+11.86
9
Jordan Clarkson
14 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 21.8 MIN
+9.99
10
Josh Hart
7 PTS · 12 REB · 5 AST · 30.7 MIN
+9.44
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 L. Shamet STEAL (2 STL) 107–110
Q4 0:01 G. Santos bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 107–110
Q4 0:06 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 107–110
Q4 0:06 O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 107–109
Q4 0:06 G. Santos personal FOUL (4 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 107–108
Q4 0:07 B. Podziemski driving Layup (25 PTS) 107–108
Q4 0:15 J. Hart personal FOUL (3 PF) 105–108
Q4 0:16 L. Shamet Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 105–108
Q4 0:16 L. Shamet Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 105–107
Q4 0:16 G. Santos take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Shamet 2 FT) 105–106
Q4 0:20 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:3 Def:9) 105–106
Q4 0:23 MISS B. Podziemski 25' pullup 3PT 105–106
Q4 0:28 B. Podziemski REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 105–106
Q4 0:28 MISS O. Anunoby tip Layup 105–106
Q4 0:28 O. Anunoby REBOUND (Off:3 Def:1) 105–106

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 Jalen Brunson 35.7m
30
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+20.5

Masterful orchestration of the offense and relentless rim pressure resulted in a massive +10.9 impact score. He consistently broke down his primary defender, forcing help and creating high-quality looks for teammates. Surprisingly, his defensive metrics (+7.7) were outstanding, highlighted by his ability to draw charges and fight over screens.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.0

Consistent interior scoring and strong defensive positioning (+4.5) drove a highly effective performance. He abandoned the three-point line after early misses and instead bullied his way to the rim against mismatched defenders. His ability to anchor the glass and alter shots at the rim provided a massive stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +15.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Hart 30.7m
7
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Despite strong rebounding and hustle metrics, his reluctance to look for his own shot resulted in a negative overall impact. He frequently passed up open looks, which bogged down the half-court offense and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His transition pushes were effective, but the half-court passivity was a glaring issue.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 29.3m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

A highly efficient but low-volume offensive night yielded a modest positive impact. He picked his spots perfectly from beyond the arc, punishing late closeouts without forcing the issue. His defensive versatility kept the opponent's primary options in check, providing steady, mistake-free minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 21.4m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

A frigid shooting night from the perimeter severely dragged down his net impact. He repeatedly settled for contested pull-up jumpers instead of attacking the teeth of the defense. While his point-of-attack defense (+4.2) remained elite, the empty offensive possessions were too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Despite an incredible +7.6 hustle score, his erratic perimeter shooting kept his overall impact in the negative. He generated numerous extra possessions through deflections and offensive rebounds, but immediately gave that value back with forced threes. The high-energy effort was ultimately undone by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Efficient isolation scoring kept his impact barely above water, though his defensive indifference (+0.0) limited his ceiling. He successfully attacked closeouts and hit tough runners, providing a necessary spark plug for the second unit. However, his tendency to die on screens allowed opponents to immediately answer on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.0

An absolute terror defensively (+13.2), he completely shut down the paint and altered the geometry of the opponent's offense. Even with minimal offensive touches, his vertical spacing and screen-setting created massive driving lanes for the guards. His rim deterrence alone was enough to swing the momentum heavily in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +8.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

A surprising lack of disruptive energy (+0.2 hustle) rendered his minutes largely ineffective. He failed to generate his trademark backcourt pressure, allowing the opposing guards to initiate their offense comfortably. Without that defensive chaos, his low-usage offensive role wasn't enough to positively impact the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Complete invisibility in the hustle categories (+0.0) and poor finishing cratered his brief stint on the floor. He looked hesitant to engage physically, failing to secure loose balls or fight through box-outs. The lack of energy combined with missed assignments led to a disastrous -7.5 net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
25
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.4

High-volume scoring was largely offset by hidden costs, resulting in a modest +0.9 net impact despite the offensive output. He struggled to find his stroke from deep, settling for contested looks that bailed out the defense. His playmaking kept the offense afloat, but the overall efficiency didn't match the raw production.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quinten Post 35.4m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

An unexpected scoring explosion was fueled by confident perimeter shooting and excellent floor spacing. The +5.8 defensive rating highlights how well he protected the paint and contested shots without fouling. By stretching the floor and anchoring the defense, he dictated the tempo whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 46.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Gui Santos 31.8m
20
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.8

Continuing a hot streak of efficient finishing, his offensive rhythm was the primary driver of a solid +2.7 overall impact. While his scoring volume was excellent, his defensive metrics suggest he gave some of that value back on the other end. His ability to consistently find gaps in the defense kept the offense flowing during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Will Richard 29.0m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his overall impact (-4.8) despite solid defensive metrics. Taking only three shots in nearly 30 minutes allowed defenders to completely ignore him and sag into the paint. His strong closeouts and defensive rotations couldn't overcome the spacing issues his reluctance created.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Malevy Leons 19.6m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite a brutal shooting night, his overall impact remained positive due to relentless off-ball activity. A massive +6.1 hustle score indicates he was constantly generating extra possessions and disrupting passing lanes. His defensive rotations salvaged a performance that would have otherwise been derailed by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring -3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.8

A dominant two-way performance was anchored by elite point-of-attack defense (+6.5) and highly efficient finishing. He capitalized on transition opportunities and cut decisively, punishing the defense for over-helping. This level of disruptive energy completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm while providing a massive scoring boost.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Pat Spencer 22.7m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Inefficient shooting and a lack of defensive resistance dragged his net impact into the red. He settled for tough midrange looks instead of attacking the basket, allowing the defense to dictate terms. The lack of hustle plays (+0.8) meant he wasn't doing the dirty work needed to compensate for the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 13.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Poor shot selection and an inability to create separation resulted in a highly detrimental -6.0 impact score. He forced contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, stalling offensive momentum. His defensive contributions were negligible, compounding the damage done by his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.3

An absolute zero on offense, his inability to finish around the rim severely handicapped the second unit. He missed multiple point-blank looks and failed to establish deep post position against smaller defenders. While he showed some effort on the glass (+3.5 hustle), the offensive black hole he created was too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

A steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left him as a severe net negative (-5.0) in limited action. He struggled to get involved in the offensive flow, failing to generate the rim pressure that normally defines his game. Without his typical scoring gravity, his minutes were largely empty.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1