Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 7/14 +0.7
Johnson 8/12 +4.8
Fox Hard 5/10 +2.6
Harper Hard 6/9 +6.6
Champagnie Hard 6/8 +9.5
Waters III Hard 4/8 +2.0
Bryant Hard 2/8 -3.5
Barnes 6/7 +8.1
Castle 1/7 -4.1
Olynyk 1/4 -2.8

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Raynaud 13/25 +4.2
Clifford Hard 6/13 +2.9
Achiuwa 4/12 -2.9
Plowden Hard 5/11 +1.7
McDermott Hard 4/8 +4.1
Hayes Hard 3/8 -0.6
Cardwell 3/6 -0.5
Westbrook 2/6 -2.5
DeRozan 1/4 -1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
SAC
48/93 Field Goals 41/93
51.6% Field Goal % 44.1%
25/49 3-Pointers 14/36
51.0% 3-Point % 38.9%
11/13 Free Throws 8/13
84.6% Free Throw % 61.5%
66.9% True Shooting % 52.7%
55 Total Rebounds 50
5 Offensive 6
45 Defensive 35
41 Assists 32
6.83 Assist/TO Ratio 4.00
6 Turnovers 8
5 Steals 4
5 Blocks 2
11 Fouls 14
40 Points in Paint 48
20 Fast Break Pts 8
9 Points off TOs 9
9 Second Chance Pts 11
63 Bench Points 40
38 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Maxime Raynaud
32 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 41.6 MIN
+21.27
2
De'Aaron Fox
15 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 21.7 MIN
+17.7
3
Victor Wembanyama
18 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 22.0 MIN
+15.36
4
Harrison Barnes
16 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 21.7 MIN
+15.13
5
Keldon Johnson
18 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 19.8 MIN
+14.48
6
Dylan Harper
15 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 19.5 MIN
+13.47
7
Nique Clifford
15 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 36.7 MIN
+13.37
8
Julian Champagnie
17 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 23.5 MIN
+12.15
9
Doug McDermott
12 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 24.7 MIN
+11.95
10
Luke Kornet
4 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 19.5 MIN
+11.19
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 D. Cardwell 12' floating Jump Shot (7 PTS) (M. Raynaud 3 AST) 132–104
Q4 0:30 L. Waters III 25' 3PT (11 PTS) (J. McLaughlin 1 AST) 132–102
Q4 0:43 N. Clifford 27' 3PT (15 PTS) (D. Cardwell 2 AST) 129–102
Q4 0:57 D. McDermott REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 129–99
Q4 1:00 MISS C. Bryant 25' 3PT 129–99
Q4 1:16 M. Raynaud 8' driving floating Jump Shot (32 PTS) (N. Clifford 7 AST) 129–99
Q4 1:27 M. Raynaud REBOUND (Off:0 Def:9) 129–97
Q4 1:30 MISS J. McLaughlin 17' step back Shot 129–97
Q4 1:36 K. Olynyk REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 129–97
Q4 1:39 M. Raynaud BLOCK (1 BLK) 129–97
Q4 1:39 MISS K. Olynyk Layup - blocked 129–97
Q4 1:52 M. Raynaud driving floating Jump Shot (30 PTS) 129–97
Q4 2:09 K. Olynyk running Layup (4 PTS) 129–95
Q4 2:12 K. Olynyk STEAL (1 STL) 127–95
Q4 2:12 K. Hayes bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 127–95

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

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 41.6m
32
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.5

Dominating the offensive glass and exploiting drop coverages fueled a massive offensive rating. Despite carrying a heavy workload, fatigue late in the game led to a few costly defensive miscommunications that slightly capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Scoring +23.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +7.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nique Clifford 36.7m
15
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.7

Sloppy live-ball turnovers in transition repeatedly handed the opponent easy run-outs. The playmaking volume masked poor decision-making in traffic, which ultimately dragged his team into a negative differential.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Forcing heavily contested shots at the rim instead of kicking out to open shooters torpedoed his offensive value. While his defensive switchability was solid, the empty offensive trips and poor shot selection sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-7.3

Erratic shot selection early in the shot clock and gambling for steals on defense repeatedly compromised the team's half-court shell. The resulting chaotic pace played directly into the opponent's hands, negating the value of his high assist volume.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 16.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Stagnant isolation possessions completely killed the team's ball movement and allowed the defense to set. Compounding the offensive struggles, he was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, resulting in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -83.2
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Frequently driving into crowded gaps and coughing up the ball severely disrupted the offensive rhythm. Despite active hands on defense, those momentum-killing offensive possessions resulted in a heavy negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Elite off-ball movement warped the defense and created wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. However, his overall value was capped by being heavily targeted in isolation on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

A complete lack of perimeter threat allowed defenders to pack the paint and ignore him entirely off the ball. Playing 4-on-5 offensively tanked his overall value, even though his point-of-attack defensive pressure remained solid.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Setting bruising screens freed up shooters and created valuable separation on the perimeter. Yet, a complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his defender to freely roam the paint, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, heavily driving his positive offensive rating. However, late-game defensive miscommunications on switches kept his overall impact from matching his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Immense rim deterrence completely altered the opponent's shot profile, forcing them into contested mid-range pull-ups. Even on a quiet scoring night, his sheer defensive gravity dictated the flow of the half-court game.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 21.7m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.6

Relentless downhill pressure compromised the opposing defensive shell right from the opening tip. Elite point-of-attack defense and disciplined screen navigation fueled a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +73.7
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 21.7m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Punishing aggressive closeouts with decisive straight-line drives defined his highly efficient stint. His ability to hit timely corner jumpers stabilized the offense during a critical second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 114.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 21.5m
3
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-9.1

Defenders routinely went under screens and dared him to shoot, which severely bogged down the half-court spacing. While his passing vision was sharp, the resulting offensive stagnation and forced passes into traffic dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Opponents relentlessly targeted him on defensive switches, generating easy straight-line drives that bled points. This defensive bleeding completely negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +38.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

High-motor closeouts and crisp weak-side rotations kept his defensive impact firmly in the green. Unfortunately, his offensive touch completely abandoned him, leading to empty possessions that neutralized his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Absorbing contact in the paint and finishing through traffic forced early defensive rotations all night. His bully-ball drives consistently generated high-quality looks for the perimeter unit.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 19.5m
4
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Flawless execution in drop coverage and verticality at the rim completely erased the opponent's interior attack. He compounded this defensive masterclass by keeping multiple possessions alive via crucial weak-side tip-outs.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +11.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 19.5m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.2

Mature pick-and-roll pacing allowed him to systematically dismantle defensive switches. He rarely forced the issue, letting the game come to him and maintaining a highly efficient offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 14.2m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Brilliant connective passing from the high post unlocked backdoor cutting lanes that the defense never solved. His flawless positional awareness disrupted multiple offensive actions, proving that scoring isn't required to dominate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Being a half-step slow on pick-and-roll coverages surrendered easy pocket passes and wide-open floaters. His inability to quickly recover effectively clogged the paint and stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Initiated offensive sets cleanly against second-unit pressure without forcing the issue during a brief rotation stint. Provided a stabilizing presence that kept the ball moving side-to-side.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0