Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHI lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
CHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Harden Hard 10/23 +3.4
Mobley Open 12/19 -0.1
Tyson Open 8/14 +0.8
Merrill Hard 5/12 +0.4
Ellis 2/6 -3.0
Bryant 2/5 -0.9
Strus Hard 0/5 -5.3
Schröder Hard 1/4 -1.5
Wade 0/3 -3.6

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Dillingham 7/14 +2.1
Buzelis 5/13 -2.9
Jones Open 6/12 -1.6
Richards Open 7/11 +1.0
Giddey Hard 4/11 -2.0
Sexton 3/11 -5.9
Miller Open 4/9 -2.8
Yabusele 4/8 +0.8
Williams Hard 2/5 +1.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
CHI
40/91 Field Goals 42/94
44.0% Field Goal % 44.7%
14/41 3-Pointers 15/44
34.1% 3-Point % 34.1%
21/31 Free Throws 11/17
67.7% Free Throw % 64.7%
55.0% True Shooting % 54.2%
65 Total Rebounds 56
16 Offensive 12
38 Defensive 35
26 Assists 27
1.62 Assist/TO Ratio 1.69
14 Turnovers 16
11 Steals 11
5 Blocks 7
17 Fouls 24
46 Points in Paint 50
4 Fast Break Pts 19
19 Points off TOs 23
14 Second Chance Pts 8
22 Bench Points 43
29 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Evan Mobley
26 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 36.4 MIN
+29.46
2
James Harden
36 PTS · 7 REB · 9 AST · 36.5 MIN
+22.83
3
Jaylon Tyson
18 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 23.2 MIN
+20.04
4
Guerschon Yabusele
10 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 29.3 MIN
+18.72
5
Tre Jones
20 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 31.9 MIN
+17.53
6
Matas Buzelis
13 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 33.0 MIN
+13.26
7
Nick Richards
16 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 30.0 MIN
+11.83
8
Rob Dillingham
17 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 21.1 MIN
+11.4
9
Sam Merrill
13 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 31.2 MIN
+10.71
10
Josh Giddey
9 PTS · 6 REB · 19 AST · 36.7 MIN
+6.02
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 D. Schröder Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 115–110
Q4 0:01 D. Schröder Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 114–110
Q4 0:01 T. Jones personal FOUL (3 PF) (Schröder 2 FT) 113–110
Q4 0:04 G. Yabusele running Layup (10 PTS) 113–110
Q4 0:07 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 113–108
Q4 0:10 MISS E. Mobley Free Throw 2 of 2 113–108
Q4 0:10 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–108
Q4 0:10 MISS E. Mobley Free Throw 1 of 2 113–108
Q4 0:10 J. Giddey personal FOUL (5 PF) (Mobley 2 FT) 113–108
Q4 0:10 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:6 Def:8) 113–108
Q4 0:11 MISS M. Buzelis 24' 3PT 113–108
Q4 0:17 J. Harden Free Throw 2 of 2 (36 PTS) 113–108
Q4 0:17 TEAM offensive REBOUND 112–108
Q4 0:17 MISS J. Harden Free Throw 1 of 2 112–108
Q4 0:17 J. Giddey personal FOUL (4 PF) (Harden 2 FT) 112–108

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

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 36.7m
9
pts
6
reb
19
ast
Impact
-11.0

Massive assist generation was completely undone by defensive bleeding and likely high-leverage turnovers. Opponents exploited his defensive positioning, turning his offensive orchestration into a severe net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Matas Buzelis 33.0m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Struggles from beyond the arc were entirely offset by elite weak-side rim protection. He made his mark by doing the dirty work, utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots at the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 2
S Tre Jones 31.9m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Steady dribble penetration and disciplined point-of-attack defense drove a solid positive rating. Keeping the offense humming without forcing low-percentage looks defined his highly effective floor-general performance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nick Richards 30.0m
16
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

Capitalized on interior mismatches to generate highly efficient offense around the basket. Despite the strong finishing, a lack of defensive deterrence at the rim limited his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Collin Sexton 18.7m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Forced drives and poor shot selection at the rim tanked his efficiency and overall value. Breaking away from his recent hot streak, his empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Imposing physical defense and relentless rebounding anchored a highly effective stint. Switching onto smaller players while maintaining interior presence dictated the terms of engagement and drove his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

An aggressive scoring mentality off the bench sparked a much-needed offensive surge. Creating separation for perimeter jumpers directly fueled a positive shift in momentum and shattered his recent scoring slump.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Floating on the perimeter instead of attacking closeouts resulted in a highly negative rating. A failure to assert himself physically or crash the glass made him a non-factor for most of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Inconsistent finishing in the paint and defensive miscommunications slightly outweighed his flashes of productivity. He struggled to string together positive possessions on both ends simultaneously.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 36.5m
36
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+22.3

A blistering perimeter shooting display shattered his recent averages and warped the opposing defense. Generating unassisted looks from deep masked any defensive limitations and single-handedly carried the offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +25.3
Creation +4.7
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Evan Mobley 36.4m
26
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+31.5

Monumental defensive metrics and hyper-efficient interior finishing drove a massive overall rating. He completely locked down the paint while punishing mismatches on the other end, establishing himself as the definitive two-way force of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +17.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 31.2m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Perimeter shot-hunting yielded mixed results, ultimately pulling his net rating slightly negative. While he provided necessary spacing, the missed triples likely led to long rebounds and fast-break chances for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jaylon Tyson 23.2m
18
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

Disciplined shot selection and active perimeter defense fueled a highly productive stint. Capitalizing on his touches without forcing the issue allowed him to perfectly complement the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +12.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 18.9m
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Complete offensive invisibility dragged his rating into the red despite solid defensive rotations. Failing to even attempt a shot inside the arc made him a liability that opponents easily ignored.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 26.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.9

Excellent point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage a rough shooting night that stalled the half-court execution. The lack of scoring punch outweighed his disruptive presence on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
Max Strus 24.0m
0
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

A complete zero in the scoring column derailed his net impact despite commendable defensive effort. The inability to knock down open perimeter looks allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring -4.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Settling for tough jumpers rather than breaking down the defense kept his overall impact in the negative. He managed to salvage his rating slightly through steady playmaking and limiting defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Sturdy interior defense kept his impact hovering near neutral during a brief rotation stint. A lack of offensive involvement prevented him from tipping the scales further in a positive direction.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Passive play on the offensive end resulted in zero shot attempts and a negative net rating. The lack of aggression or floor-stretching ability allowed defenders to completely sag off and clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0