Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 199 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Miller 6/17 -5.5
Sexton 8/14 +5.8
Okoro Open 7/13 +0.4
Buzelis 6/13 -2.4
Jones Open 8/12 +1.9
Giddey Hard 1/11 -8.5
Williams 1/8 -5.6
Yabusele Hard 2/6 0.0
Dillingham Open 1/3 -1.7
Olbrich Hard 1/1 +1.1

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 8/24 -9.1
Williams Open 8/16 -3.3
Wallace 8/11 +8.3
Joe Hard 5/11 +2.4
Mitchell 6/10 +0.9
Williams 4/6 +3.4
Hartenstein Open 2/5 -2.2
Wiggins 3/4 +2.3
Dort 1/4 -1.7
McCain 0/4 -4.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
OKC
41/98 Field Goals 47/101
41.8% Field Goal % 46.5%
15/47 3-Pointers 14/45
31.9% 3-Point % 31.1%
16/21 Free Throws 23/31
76.2% Free Throw % 74.2%
52.7% True Shooting % 57.1%
58 Total Rebounds 68
10 Offensive 15
37 Defensive 43
25 Assists 29
2.08 Assist/TO Ratio 2.90
12 Turnovers 9
4 Steals 9
5 Blocks 9
21 Fouls 19
50 Points in Paint 60
23 Fast Break Pts 24
6 Points off TOs 12
9 Second Chance Pts 19
46 Bench Points 58
9 Largest Lead 24
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cason Wallace
21 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 30.7 MIN
+27.03
2
Tre Jones
21 PTS · 7 REB · 9 AST · 26.3 MIN
+22.83
3
Jaylin Williams
12 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 19.0 MIN
+18.9
4
Isaac Okoro
20 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 31.2 MIN
+17.86
5
Collin Sexton
22 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 30.0 MIN
+17.17
6
Jalen Williams
18 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 26.7 MIN
+14.39
7
Isaiah Joe
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 18.2 MIN
+13.76
8
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
25 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 29.5 MIN
+11.66
9
Isaiah Hartenstein
6 PTS · 16 REB · 3 AST · 24.2 MIN
+11.02
10
Ajay Mitchell
15 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 25.2 MIN
+10.2
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 OKC shot clock Team TURNOVER 113–131
Q4 0:24 P. Sandfort REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 113–131
Q4 0:26 MISS P. Williams 10' turnaround fadeaway Shot 113–131
Q4 0:32 P. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 113–131
Q4 0:34 MISS P. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 113–131
Q4 0:34 P. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 113–131
Q4 0:34 P. Sandfort personal FOUL (2 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 112–131
Q4 0:45 P. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 112–131
Q4 0:47 MISS P. Sandfort Free Throw 2 of 2 112–131
Q4 0:47 P. Sandfort Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 112–131
Q4 0:47 C. Sexton shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Sandfort 2 FT) 112–130
Q4 0:48 A. Wiggins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 112–130
Q4 0:51 MISS P. Sandfort 3PT 112–130
Q4 1:04 B. Carlson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 112–130
Q4 1:06 MISS L. Olbrich Free Throw 2 of 2 112–130

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Cason Wallace actually won the night
21 points, 5 boards, 2 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+18.6), shot-making (+6.0), and defense (+6.0), pushing Net Impact to +24.4.
Scoring +18.6
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +6.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Defense +6.0
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Josh Giddey too hard
5 points, 7 boards, 11 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-11.8) and scoring (-2.9), pulling Net Impact down to -14.0.
Turnovers -11.8
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Scoring -2.9
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +0.6
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
hidden value
Jaylin Williams's value was hiding in plain sight
12 points, 10 boards, 0 assists undersells it. scoring (+10.4), defense (+4.2), and hustle (+3.0) pushed his Net Impact to +11.4.
Scoring +10.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +3.0
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jalen Williams too hard
18 points, 6 boards, 8 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-4.7) and defense (-1.1) pulled Net Impact down to +4.8.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.1
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Cason Wallace 30.7m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.4

An extraordinary two-way masterclass defined this performance, combining elite point-of-attack defense with scorching perimeter efficiency. His relentless ball pressure created transition opportunities, which he then ruthlessly converted from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
25
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.6

A shocking inability to connect from deep completely derailed his usual efficiency, as he stubbornly forced contested perimeter jumpers. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his typical foul-drawing prowess, pulling his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/24 (33.3%)
3PT 0/10 (0.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 26.7m
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.8

Methodical dissection of the mid-range defense and timely playmaking kept the offense humming during crucial stretches. His ability to consistently break down his primary matchup off the dribble drove a solid, positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

Absolute dominance on the glass and elite rim protection anchored the interior defense, compensating for a quiet scoring night. His physical box-outs and timely help rotations thwarted multiple high-value scoring attempts at the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +20.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 18.1m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Offensive hesitancy and an inability to connect from deep allowed his primary defender to roam freely as a help-side roamer. While his on-ball defense remained physical, the lack of scoring gravity severely cramped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.0

Despite finding an efficient scoring rhythm, defensive lapses and poor screen navigation consistently gave points right back. His inability to contain dribble penetration negated the value of his offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Elite rotational awareness and exceptional hustle metrics fueled a massive defensive rating that anchored the second unit. Taking drawn charges and securing highly contested rebounds completely swung the momentum whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 18.2m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Lethal floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for his teammates while punishing defensive breakdowns from deep. His quick trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities provided a crucial offensive spark that stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 15.2m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Steady, mistake-free basketball and reliable defensive positioning provided a stabilizing presence during his rotation minutes. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead relying on smart cuts and timely closeouts to generate a modestly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

Rushed shot attempts and an inability to find the range quickly turned his minutes into a liability for the offense. Opponents successfully targeted his lack of size on the other end, compounding the damage from his scoreless outing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring -3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Opportunistic cutting and flawless shot selection maximized his value within a limited role. He capitalized on every defensive rotation, converting high-percentage looks at the rim to secure a highly efficient positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

A brief, unimpactful stint saw him struggle to catch up to the pace of the game. Minor defensive miscommunications during his short time on the floor resulted in a slight negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Logging empty minutes at the end of the rotation without registering any meaningful statistics kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. A lack of involvement on either end of the floor prevented him from making a tangible mark.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Forcing multiple bad shots in a very short window instantly torpedoed offensive efficiency during garbage time. Poor defensive awareness compounded the issue, leading to a surprisingly steep negative score for such a brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 34.4m
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc cratered his overall efficiency, dragging down an otherwise active two-way performance. Despite generating solid defensive metrics and hustle events, those wasted possessions on the perimeter ultimately resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Giddey 32.9m
5
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
-14.0

An absolutely disastrous shooting night completely neutralized his playmaking contributions, allowing defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the passing lanes. The sheer volume of bricked perimeter looks stalled out multiple offensive possessions, resulting in a staggering negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Isaac Okoro 31.2m
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

Sizzling perimeter shooting fueled a massive offensive surge that far exceeded his usual output. His ability to capitalize on spot-up opportunities from deep kept the defense scrambling, offsetting a relatively quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tre Jones 26.3m
21
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+14.3

Flawless offensive initiation and relentless defensive pressure at the point of attack drove a dominant two-way showing. His streak of hyper-efficient scoring continued, punishing drop coverages while simultaneously blowing up opponent pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A stark drop in offensive aggression limited his overall influence, as he settled primarily for contested looks from the outside. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, the lack of interior pressure severely hampered his value on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.3

Blistering perimeter shot-making carried his impact, punishing defenders who went under screens with lethal accuracy. This offensive explosion masked a relatively pedestrian defensive effort, keeping his overall net score moderately positive.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

High-volume inefficiency plagued his offensive minutes, as he repeatedly forced contested shots early in the shot clock. Even with strong hustle metrics and active rim contests, the sheer number of wasted offensive trips dragged his overall score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A prolonged shooting slump continued to decimate his offensive value, as he struggled to convert even wide-open looks. The inability to punish closeouts negated his adequate defensive positioning, rendering him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.1

Complete offensive invisibility during his stint on the floor severely hampered the second unit's rhythm. Failing to generate any downhill pressure or create for others left the offense stagnant, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Making the most of a brief cameo, he maintained solid positional discipline and converted his lone opportunity. A quick burst of competent execution in garbage time yielded a slightly positive bump.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0