Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DAL lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
DAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Moody 8/20 -3.6
Porziņģis Hard 7/17 -0.6
Podziemski 8/15 +1.8
Green 5/11 -3.7
Santos 5/10 -1.2
Payton II Open 8/8 +6.3
Cryer Hard 5/7 +6.2
Melton 0/6 -6.4
Richard Hard 4/5 +6.6
Spencer 1/2 0.0

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 12/19 +7.3
Marshall 7/15 +0.2
Thompson Hard 5/10 +5.0
Gafford Open 8/8 +5.9
Christie 6/8 +5.3
Washington Open 4/8 -1.5
Nembhard 2/7 -2.5
Poulakidas Hard 3/5 +3.7
Bagley III 3/4 +2.7
Middleton Hard 1/3 -1.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
DAL
51/101 Field Goals 51/87
50.5% Field Goal % 58.6%
17/47 3-Pointers 16/36
36.2% 3-Point % 44.4%
18/24 Free Throws 13/20
75.0% Free Throw % 65.0%
61.4% True Shooting % 68.4%
63 Total Rebounds 37
17 Offensive 5
32 Defensive 21
39 Assists 37
1.62 Assist/TO Ratio 1.61
24 Turnovers 21
16 Steals 13
4 Blocks 3
25 Fouls 23
62 Points in Paint 62
13 Fast Break Pts 23
29 Points off TOs 30
23 Second Chance Pts 8
61 Bench Points 39
11 Largest Lead 15
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Daniel Gafford
20 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 31.5 MIN
+23.48
2
Gary Payton II
17 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 21.4 MIN
+22.01
3
Brandin Podziemski
20 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 40.5 MIN
+21.57
4
Cooper Flagg
32 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 41.6 MIN
+20.95
5
Max Christie
15 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 33.3 MIN
+17.15
6
Moses Moody
23 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 34.2 MIN
+17.13
7
Kristaps Porziņģis
22 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 29.2 MIN
+15.48
8
Gui Santos
16 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 35.2 MIN
+14.22
9
LJ Cryer
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 19.0 MIN
+12.67
10
Will Richard
12 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 12.0 MIN
+12.52
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:04 G. Payton II STEAL (2 STL) 137–131
Q5 0:04 N. Marshall bad pass TURNOVER (8 TO) 137–131
Q5 0:07 D. Green Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 137–131
Q5 0:07 TEAM offensive REBOUND 136–131
Q5 0:07 MISS D. Green Free Throw 1 of 2 136–131
Q5 0:07 K. Thompson take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Green 2 FT) 136–131
Q5 0:23 B. Podziemski REBOUND (Off:5 Def:5) 136–131
Q5 0:26 MISS M. Christie 25' pullup 3PT 136–131
Q5 0:32 N. Marshall REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 136–131
Q5 0:33 MISS K. Porziņģis 13' Jump Shot 136–131
Q5 0:58 TEAM defensive REBOUND 136–131
Q5 1:01 MISS M. Christie 25' 3PT 136–131
Q5 1:07 C. Flagg REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 136–131
Q5 1:09 MISS M. Moody running Layup 136–131
Q5 1:13 M. Moody STEAL (3 STL) 136–131

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 41.6m
32
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+14.2

High-level shot creation and consistent rim pressure kept the offense afloat, though defensive lapses in transition likely suppressed his overall net rating. He consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble during isolation sets, forcing defensive collapses that opened up the floor. Strong weak-side rim contests (+5.5 Def) partially offset whatever defensive miscommunications occurred on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Scoring +27.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Naji Marshall 35.4m
16
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.7

A heavy diet of contested, low-efficiency jumpers severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm and tanked his overall rating. While he competed hard on the perimeter (+4.9 Def) and fought for loose balls, his insistence on playing hero-ball in semi-transition led to empty trips. The costly offensive decision-making completely overshadowed his functional defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -15.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S P.J. Washington 34.1m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite interior deterrence and switchability (+9.8 Def) were completely undone by offensive passivity and momentum-killing turnovers. He anchored the frontline defense beautifully against pick-and-roll actions, but his hesitation to attack closeouts bogged down the half-court flow. The stark contrast between his defensive dominance and offensive invisibility defined his negative net yield.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Christie 33.3m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Smart, opportunistic perimeter shooting combined with disciplined closeouts (+6.5 Def) to yield a steady, positive two-way performance. He rarely forced the issue on offense, instead capitalizing on defensive rotations to knock down high-value looks. His ability to navigate baseline screens without fouling was a quiet but crucial factor in his successful stint.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 31.5m
20
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.4

Total domination of the painted area through flawless shot selection and relentless rim-running fueled a massive positive impact. He completely neutralized opposing drives with verticality (+7.2 Def) while consistently generating second-chance opportunities via sheer physical effort (+5.8 Hustle). His ability to seal deep in the post during the third quarter broke the back of the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite floor spacing and catch-and-shoot gravity were negated by defensive liabilities and an inability to secure long rebounds. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, capitalizing on his declining lateral quickness to generate easy paint touches. The sheer volume of his perimeter makes couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.9

Poor finishing at the rim and an inability to break down the primary defender resulted in a stagnant offensive showing. He managed to stay attached to his man defensively (+3.4 Def), but the wasted possessions from forced floaters in the lane dragged his value down. His inability to organize the second unit during a crucial first-half stretch proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Soft interior defense and a failure to protect the weak side (-1.1 Def) erased the value of his highly efficient interior finishing. He was repeatedly late on rotations, allowing uncontested layups that fueled opponent momentum. Despite converting his own offensive looks, his inability to anchor the paint made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.2

A lethargic rotational stint characterized by defensive apathy (-0.2 Def) and zero offensive rhythm severely hurt the bench unit. He struggled to gain separation against younger defenders, resulting in stalled possessions and late-clock bailouts. Failing to make any tangible hustle plays (+0.4) underscored a highly ineffective performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Timely perimeter marksmanship provided a quick offensive jolt, though his one-dimensional playstyle capped his overall ceiling. He operated strictly as a spot-up threat, punishing late closeouts without offering any secondary playmaking or rebounding (+0.0 Hustle). His quick-trigger releases during a third-quarter run were the sole driver of his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Complete offensive invisibility during a brief cameo allowed the defense to play five-on-four, stalling the team's spacing. He showed flashes of energy on the glass (+1.2 Hustle), but his reluctance to even look at the rim made him a liability. The lack of scoring gravity severely hindered the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
20
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.8

Despite gaudy traditional production, his actual net influence was muted by poor transition defense and likely live-ball turnovers that fed the opponent's break. He found consistent success attacking the seams of the zone defense, yet gave much of that value back by getting caught out of position on back-cuts. The raw offensive volume masked a somewhat sloppy floor-general performance.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +11.7
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Draymond Green 38.5m
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.9

Impact plummeted due to empty possessions, highlighted by a barrage of ill-advised perimeter attempts that short-circuited the half-court offense. While his weak-side defensive rotations remained elite (+6.5 Def), the offensive spacing issues he created allowed the defense to pack the paint. Giving away possessions on the perimeter ultimately negated his trademark hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Moses Moody 34.2m
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.1

Active hands in the passing lanes and aggressive closeouts fueled a robust defensive rating (+9.4) that anchored his overall impact. His willingness to crash the glass and contest loose balls (+5.6 Hustle) compensated for some erratic perimeter shot selection. He maintained his recent scoring rhythm by consistently attacking closeouts during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
22
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.5

A high volume of missed mid-range jumpers dragged down what could have been a dominant statistical profile. He generated solid rim-protection metrics (+3.1 Def) by altering shots in drop coverage, but the empty offensive trips limited his overall net positive. His tendency to settle for contested fadeaways against smaller matchups capped his ceiling tonight.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-22.4

Complete offensive paralysis cratered his overall value, as he failed to convert on multiple high-value spot-up opportunities. He tried to salvage his minutes through tenacious point-of-attack defense (+6.5 Def) and fighting over screens, but the total lack of scoring gravity killed the team's spacing. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter during crucial fourth-quarter possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring -4.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 7
Gui Santos 35.2m
16
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and offensive putbacks (+9.1 Hustle) salvaged a night where his outside stroke completely abandoned him. By bricking a handful of wide-open perimeter looks, he limited his offensive ceiling, but his willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches kept his overall impact positive. His constant off-ball cutting created secondary scoring chances that don't show up in standard metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.6

Absolute perfection as a rim-runner and baseline cutter generated an overwhelmingly positive net rating in limited action. He weaponized the dunker spot to dismantle the opponent's interior rotations, punishing every defensive over-help. Combined with his usual disruptive perimeter ball pressure (+4.0 Def), this was a masterclass in low-usage, high-efficiency role playing.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 19.0m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Elite perimeter shot-making carried his impact score, as he punished defensive drop coverages with rapid-fire releases. However, a complete lack of secondary effort (+0.0 Hustle) and poor navigation of off-ball screens (-1.4 Def) prevented him from breaking into a higher tier of overall value. He operated purely as a specialist in this stint, giving back points on the defensive end almost as quickly as he scored them.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 12.4m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.0

A passive offensive approach and failure to initiate early offense dragged his overall rating firmly into the red. He struggled to dictate the tempo during his rotational minutes, allowing the opposing second unit to dictate the terms of engagement. Minimal physical exertion on loose balls (+0.4 Hustle) compounded his inability to leave a positive footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 12.0m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Flawless shot selection from beyond the arc maximized his brief time on the floor, driving a massive surge in offensive efficiency. He capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns during a pivotal second-quarter run, spacing the floor without forcing bad looks. Solid positional awareness (+2.1 Def) ensured he wasn't a liability when the ball went the other way.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0