Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 157 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 13/22 +8.6
Bridges Hard 6/11 +2.9
Alvarado Hard 3/10 -1.0
Hart Hard 5/9 +5.5
Towns Open 5/9 -0.6
Anunoby Hard 2/9 -4.3
Clarkson Open 1/6 -5.1
Robinson Open 1/3 -2.2
McBride Hard 0/3 -3.4

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 8/18 -1.1
Williams 7/11 +3.1
Holmgren 5/10 -1.8
Dort Hard 4/7 +2.3
Hartenstein Open 3/6 -1.1
Caruso Hard 2/5 +0.3
Mitchell Hard 2/4 +2.2
Joe Hard 1/4 -0.6
Wallace Open 2/4 -1.3
Williams Hard 1/3 -0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
OKC
36/82 Field Goals 35/75
43.9% Field Goal % 46.7%
15/35 3-Pointers 10/28
42.9% 3-Point % 35.7%
13/17 Free Throws 31/38
76.5% Free Throw % 81.6%
55.9% True Shooting % 60.5%
50 Total Rebounds 48
15 Offensive 12
26 Defensive 27
19 Assists 21
1.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.40
18 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 10
3 Blocks 0
25 Fouls 22
30 Points in Paint 44
4 Fast Break Pts 15
16 Points off TOs 19
16 Second Chance Pts 20
13 Bench Points 25
1 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Williams
22 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 28.6 MIN
+18.78
2
Jalen Brunson
32 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 36.8 MIN
+17.59
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
15 PTS · 18 REB · 2 AST · 34.1 MIN
+17.17
4
Josh Hart
15 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 33.8 MIN
+16.35
5
Luguentz Dort
12 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.1 MIN
+16.26
6
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
30 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 36.8 MIN
+15.84
7
Chet Holmgren
16 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 32.7 MIN
+14.54
8
Mikal Bridges
15 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 34.2 MIN
+12.37
9
Isaiah Hartenstein
6 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 24.1 MIN
+9.77
10
Ajay Mitchell
8 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 24.2 MIN
+6.63
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 OKC shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–111
Q4 0:41 J. Brunson driving Layup (32 PTS) 100–111
Q4 0:50 J. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 98–111
Q4 0:50 J. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 98–110
Q4 0:50 M. Bridges personal FOUL (6 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 98–109
Q4 0:59 J. Brunson driving bank Jump Shot (30 PTS) (J. Hart 3 AST) 98–109
Q4 1:10 C. Holmgren cutting DUNK (16 PTS) (S. Gilgeous-Alexander 4 AST) 96–109
Q4 1:26 J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 96–107
Q4 1:26 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–107
Q4 1:26 MISS J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 95–107
Q4 1:26 L. Dort personal FOUL (1 PF) (Brunson 2 FT) 95–107
Q4 1:35 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 95–107
Q4 1:35 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–106
Q4 1:35 MISS S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 95–106
Q4 1:35 K. Towns shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Gilgeous-Alexander 2 FT) 95–106

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.8

The scoring volume was undeniable, but it required a heavy diet of contested isolation jumpers that dragged down his efficiency. He bled significant value through uncharacteristic ball-handling errors when the defense trapped him at halfcourt. Ultimately, his ability to draw fouls salvaged a night where his jump shot was largely miscalibrated.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +4.0
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Chet Holmgren 32.7m
16
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.3

Anchored the paint with superb rim protection, altering multiple drives to fuel transition opportunities. However, his overall value was dragged down by an inability to connect from beyond the arc and getting stripped in traffic. Despite the offensive hiccups, his sheer length dictated the opponent's shot selection all night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +8.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 28.6m
22
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Shredded the defense with surgical precision, utilizing his burst to consistently collapse the paint and finish efficiently. His elite defensive metrics were driven by blowing up pick-and-rolls at the point of attack during a decisive third-quarter run. A handful of aggressive passing turnovers were the only blemishes on a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 27.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Broke out of a recent scoring slump by aggressively attacking closeouts and finishing through contact. His physical isolation defense completely neutralized his primary assignment on the perimeter. The impact score would have been even higher if not for a string of reach-in fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Put on a masterclass in positional defense, racking up deflections and denying entry passes to the post. He generated massive value through offensive rebounding and setting bruising screens that freed up the guards. A few illegal screens and minor foul trouble slightly suppressed what was otherwise a spectacular dirty-work performance.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +9.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.2

Flashed decent playmaking vision, but his floor game was completely derailed by careless passing into tight windows. The heavy turnover penalty wiped out the value of his efficient, albeit low-volume, perimeter shooting. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, offering little defensive resistance to offset his mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 18.1m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Generated his usual chaos with elite hustle metrics, diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes. However, his offensive execution was unusually sloppy, plagued by forced passes and missed rotation reads. The defensive energy was palpable, but the mistakes in possession control kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Provided solid ball pressure and chased shooters effectively through screens, but struggled to find his footing offensively. A pair of costly live-ball turnovers in the second quarter directly fueled opponent fast breaks. The steep drop from his recent scoring surge left the second unit starving for creation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

Operated well as a high-post hub, but his hesitancy to shoot allowed the defense to pack the paint. He drew a crucial charge to swing momentum, yet gave those points right back by committing silly fouls on the glass. The lack of scoring punch severely limited his overall utility in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 11.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A complete lack of offensive rhythm doomed his stint, as he bricked multiple open looks and failed to pressure the rim. Without his perimeter shot falling, defenders sagged off and clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. He offered very little resistance at the point of attack, compounding his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 10.0m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Failed to provide his signature floor spacing, clanking the majority of his attempts from beyond the arc. The opponent aggressively top-sided him on screens, completely removing him as a catch-and-shoot threat. Without the gravity of his jumper, his limited playmaking was exposed in halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.8m
32
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.5

Carried the primary scoring burden with a masterful midrange display, dissecting drop coverage all night. The massive offensive output was heavily taxed by defensive fouls and late-clock turnovers when trapped at the top of the key. Ultimately, his shot-making kept the offense afloat despite the heavy volume of mistakes.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Mikal Bridges 34.2m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

A highly efficient scoring night was undone by uncharacteristic mistakes in the halfcourt offense. He generated great looks coming off pin-down screens, yet surrendered significant value through a string of bad-pass turnovers. The defensive metrics were stable, but the offensive giveaways kept his net impact surprisingly muted.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
18
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.4

Dominated the glass with relentless positioning, but foul trouble and sloppy ball security severely capped his ceiling. He anchored the interior defense effectively during a crucial third-quarter stretch to build a lead. However, forcing passes out of double teams led to costly giveaways that bled away his otherwise massive offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +19.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Josh Hart 33.8m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.7

Searing perimeter shooting masked a sloppy floor game that heavily taxed his overall impact. Despite elite rebounding energy, a cluster of careless passing turnovers erased much of his offensive value. His chaotic transition pushes often ended in empty possessions or offensive fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 32.8m
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Impact plummeted due to severe offensive inefficiency, as a barrage of forced perimeter attempts dragged down his value. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, multiple live-ball turnovers in the second half crippled the team's transition defense. The steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left a massive void in the halfcourt offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Shot selection was the primary culprit for a disastrous stint, as he repeatedly forced contested floaters early in the shot clock. The steep drop in efficiency from his recent surge derailed the bench unit's momentum completely. Without his usual scoring punch, his defensive limitations were glaringly exposed in isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Snapped a highly efficient stretch of games by struggling to finish through contact around the rim. He provided his usual vertical spacing and rim deterrence, but multiple moving screens and loose-ball fouls drained his overall impact. The opponent successfully neutralized his lob threat by fronting him in the post.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.4

A significant uptick in scoring volume could not salvage a highly inefficient shooting performance. He generated his trademark backcourt pressure, but clanking multiple rushed layups killed the team's offensive rhythm. Aggressive gambles on defense also resulted in blow-bys that compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.6

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities. His inability to puncture the paint or organize the second unit led to stagnant possessions and poor shot quality. A lack of disruptive on-ball defense meant he offered no secondary value to offset the scoring drought.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no offensive involvement. He managed to execute a single solid defensive rotation, but a quick reach-in foul slightly dinged his net score. The limited run made it impossible to establish any real rhythm or impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0