Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 149 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Williams Open 6/11 +0.2
Powell Hard 4/10 -0.3
Saraf 5/9 +1.5
Wilson 4/9 -1.2
Smith Hard 5/8 +3.8
Johnson 5/8 +2.3
Mann 2/7 -3.3
Etienne Hard 2/6 -1.0
Claxton Open 3/6 -1.3
Minott Hard 3/5 +2.6

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Santos 11/16 +8.5
Melton 5/12 -2.0
Podziemski Hard 6/11 +3.2
Porziņģis 4/9 -1.0
Payton II Open 5/5 +3.2
Spencer 2/5 -1.5
Green 2/4 +0.3
Cryer Hard 0/4 -3.5
Richard Hard 1/1 +2.1
Yurtseven Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
GSW
39/81 Field Goals 36/68
48.1% Field Goal % 52.9%
12/33 3-Pointers 9/27
36.4% 3-Point % 33.3%
16/21 Free Throws 28/36
76.2% Free Throw % 77.8%
58.7% True Shooting % 65.0%
36 Total Rebounds 52
5 Offensive 8
22 Defensive 35
24 Assists 21
1.41 Assist/TO Ratio 0.81
17 Turnovers 26
17 Steals 11
2 Blocks 3
30 Fouls 22
44 Points in Paint 52
12 Fast Break Pts 17
28 Points off TOs 16
6 Second Chance Pts 12
51 Bench Points 18
13 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Ziaire Williams
19 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 23.5 MIN
+20.99
2
Gui Santos
31 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 34.9 MIN
+20.3
3
Gary Payton II
10 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 24.2 MIN
+15.08
4
Brandin Podziemski
22 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 35.1 MIN
+14.1
5
De'Anthony Melton
14 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 27.5 MIN
+13.93
6
Malachi Smith
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 18.0 MIN
+10.87
7
Drake Powell
10 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 34.0 MIN
+9.3
8
Ben Saraf
14 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 31.7 MIN
+8.77
9
Jalen Wilson
15 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 23.4 MIN
+7.35
10
Chaney Johnson
11 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 18.6 MIN
+7.08
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 D. Melton STEAL (4 STL) 106–109
Q4 0:02 J. Minott bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 106–109
Q4 0:06 D. Green Free Throw 2 of 2 (7 PTS) 106–109
Q4 0:06 D. Green Free Throw 1 of 2 (6 PTS) 106–108
Q4 0:06 J. Minott take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Green 2 FT) 106–107
Q4 0:06 D. Green REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 106–107
Q4 0:08 MISS B. Saraf driving floating bank Shot 106–107
Q4 0:24 D. Melton Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 106–107
Q4 0:24 TEAM offensive REBOUND 106–106
Q4 0:24 MISS D. Melton Free Throw 1 of 2 106–106
Q4 0:24 J. Wilson shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Melton 2 FT) 106–106
Q4 0:46 B. Saraf driving DUNK (14 PTS) 106–106
Q4 0:55 K. Porziņģis Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 104–106
Q4 0:55 K. Porziņģis Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 104–105
Q4 0:55 C. Johnson shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Porziņģis 2 FT) 104–104

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
22
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.7

Incredible offensive creation and relentless rebounding (+5.1 Hustle) drove a highly positive performance. He consistently found the soft spots in the zone defense, keeping the chains moving with smart connective passes. While his on-ball defense was merely passable, his sheer offensive gravity dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Gui Santos 34.9m
31
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.6

An absolute offensive masterclass (+14.7 Box) defined by ruthless efficiency and impeccable shot selection. He consistently punished mismatches in the post and stretched the floor, continuing a red-hot shooting streak. Strong positional defense and timely weak-side rotations ensured his massive output translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +25.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Draymond Green 33.6m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Classic defensive disruption and elite hustle metrics (+4.8) were completely overshadowed by severe offensive liabilities. The opponent's strategy to completely ignore him on the perimeter ruined the team's spacing during a pivotal fourth-quarter stretch. He passed up open looks and committed unforced errors at the top of the key, allowing the defense to pack the paint and tanking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.6

Suffocating perimeter defense (+11.6 Def) completely derailed the opponent's primary actions. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs and generated live-ball turnovers that sparked early offense. Breaking out of a severe shooting slump provided a massive secondary boost, but his relentless ball pressure was the true catalyst.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +10.5
Defense +9.2
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Solid rim deterrence and active rebounding weren't enough to overcome a clunky offensive rhythm. He struggled to establish deep post position and settled for contested perimeter looks that failed to drop. A frustrating stretch of offensive fouls on moving screens directly contributed to his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Perfect execution on cuts and transition finishes maximized his offensive value without needing isolation touches. His knack for perfectly timed baseline routes punished a sleepy opposing defense all night. Active hands in the passing lanes and elite screen navigation cemented a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 19.7m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Despite decent defensive rotations, his extreme passivity on offense created a 4-on-5 situation for his teammates. He passed up multiple catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to aggressively double the ball-handler. A failure to impact the game in transition further marginalized his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
LJ Cryer 15.4m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.4

A disastrous outing driven by terrible shot selection and an inability to create separation. Forcing heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly ignited opponent fast breaks. His lack of physical resistance on the perimeter made him a constant target in isolation sets during the second half.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pat Spencer 15.2m
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Hesitant decision-making against defensive pressure stalled the offensive flow and led to empty possessions. He struggled to navigate drop coverage, repeatedly driving into traffic without a bailout option. Minimal impact on loose balls and deflections meant he couldn't offset his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Failed to make any physical imprint on the game during his brief stint. He was a step slow on pick-and-roll coverages and offered zero resistance on the glass. A complete lack of hustle plays allowed the opponent to secure crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Drake Powell 34.0m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Defensive versatility (+8.7 Def) was the calling card here, as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and fought through screens. A crucial third-quarter stint shutting down the opponent's primary creator highlighted his immense value. His willingness to crash the glass and secure loose balls kept his impact positive despite an erratic jumper.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Saraf 31.7m
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.4

The scoring volume masked how much value he gave back through high-leverage mistakes. Live-ball turnovers in the pick-and-roll fueled opponent fast breaks and erased the value of his playmaking. A series of costly defensive miscommunications in the fourth quarter ultimately tanked his total impact despite solid individual metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ziaire Williams 23.5m
19
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.7

Elite defensive positioning (+12.9 Def) and active hands defined a dominant two-way performance. His relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+5.1 Hustle) completely neutralized the opposing wings during a massive third-quarter run. He capitalized on transition opportunities created by his own stops to shatter his recent scoring baseline.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +12.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 23.0m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Strong point-of-attack pressure (+6.1 Def) kept him afloat, but poor shot selection from deep dragged his net impact into the red. A stagnant offensive stretch in the second quarter highlighted his inability to generate rim pressure. He ultimately surrendered too much value by settling for contested perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 20.4m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Provided steady rim protection and vertical spacing, maintaining a positive impact despite a lower usage rate. His ability to switch onto guards late in the shot clock anchored the defense during crucial half-court possessions. A few mistimed closeouts on pick-and-pop bigs prevented his defensive score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Jalen Wilson 23.4m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

An aggressive mindset driving to the basket yielded a significant offensive spike compared to his recent slump. He absorbed contact well and created secondary scoring chances through sheer hustle (+2.9). However, a tendency to over-help on defense left shooters open in the corners, keeping his total impact relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 22.6m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor spacing cratered his overall impact. Opponents sagged off him entirely in the third quarter, clogging the paint and stalling the half-court offense. While he remained active defensively, his inability to punish closeouts made him a severe negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Highly efficient interior finishing drove a strong box score impact, continuing a trend of excellent shot selection. However, poor weak-side defensive awareness (-1.2 Def) gave back much of that offensive value. He was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll during the second half, limiting his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Phenomenal offensive decision-making (+10.0 Box) anchored a highly productive stint. He consistently attacked closeouts with purpose, either finishing through contact or making the right read to the perimeter. His steady point-of-attack defense against backup guards ensured his offensive gains weren't surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Lackadaisical effort on loose balls (+0.2 Hustle) and a steep drop in scoring efficiency doomed his minutes. He bailed out the defense by settling for contested mid-range pull-ups instead of attacking the rim. A string of late defensive lapses in transition further compounded his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Completely invisible on the hustle charts and actively harmful on the defensive end. He was routinely beaten off the dribble by quicker forwards, forcing the defense into scramble mode. A total lack of offensive involvement made it impossible to justify his minutes during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0