Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Achiuwa Open 12/19 +1.8
DeRozan 7/18 -2.4
Carter 4/12 -5.1
Monk Hard 6/11 +5.1
Clifford 4/9 -0.3
Plowden Hard 4/8 +2.4
Hayes Hard 1/5 -2.6
Raynaud 2/4 +0.1
McDermott Hard 1/3 -0.3
Cardwell 1/3 -1.1

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 8/19 -2.9
Barnes 5/14 -4.4
Mamukelashvili 7/10 +5.4
Shead 5/9 +3.8
Murray-Boyles Open 7/9 +2.8
Poeltl Open 6/8 +2.1
Walter Hard 3/4 +3.5
Lawson 1/3 -1.7
Martin Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
TOR
42/92 Field Goals 42/77
45.7% Field Goal % 54.5%
12/33 3-Pointers 9/23
36.4% 3-Point % 39.1%
27/29 Free Throws 22/32
93.1% Free Throw % 68.8%
58.7% True Shooting % 63.1%
56 Total Rebounds 43
19 Offensive 5
29 Defensive 27
24 Assists 33
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 3.00
13 Turnovers 11
7 Steals 9
3 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 21
54 Points in Paint 62
7 Fast Break Pts 26
16 Points off TOs 15
29 Second Chance Pts 10
39 Bench Points 39
12 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Precious Achiuwa
28 PTS · 19 REB · 1 AST · 38.0 MIN
+32.23
2
Sandro Mamukelashvili
17 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 33.1 MIN
+22.08
3
DeMar DeRozan
28 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 34.9 MIN
+19.01
4
Jakob Poeltl
18 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 28.2 MIN
+18.2
5
Jamal Shead
16 PTS · 1 REB · 7 AST · 37.1 MIN
+16.76
6
Collin Murray-Boyles
20 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 18.0 MIN
+15.76
7
Devin Carter
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 22.8 MIN
+13.9
8
Malik Monk
18 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 29.2 MIN
+12.72
9
Ja'Kobe Walter
8 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 32.3 MIN
+12.53
10
Killian Hayes
5 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 14.4 MIN
+10.68
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 123–115
Q4 0:00 TOR Heave 123–115
Q4 0:02 SAC shot clock Team TURNOVER 123–115
Q4 0:24 M. Monk REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 123–115
Q4 0:27 MISS J. Shead 12' driving floating Shot 123–115
Q4 0:34 P. Achiuwa driving finger roll Layup (28 PTS) (M. Monk 5 AST) 123–115
Q4 0:48 P. Achiuwa REBOUND (Off:11 Def:8) 121–115
Q4 0:51 MISS R. Barrett bank 3PT 121–115
Q4 0:53 TEAM offensive REBOUND 121–115
Q4 0:55 MISS S. Barnes 25' pullup 3PT 121–115
Q4 1:05 D. DeRozan 3PT (28 PTS) (M. Monk 4 AST) 121–115
Q4 1:18 S. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 118–115
Q4 1:18 TEAM offensive REBOUND 118–114
Q4 1:18 MISS S. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 118–114
Q4 1:18 P. Achiuwa shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 118–114

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Jamal Shead 37.1m
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.8

A suffocating point-of-attack defensive effort was nearly offset by erratic pacing and spacing issues on the offensive end. While he successfully hounded opposing ball-handlers into rushed decisions, his tendency to over-dribble in the half-court stagnated the offense. This push-and-pull dynamic resulted in a surprisingly muted overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 36.3m
20
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.0

A disastrous net rating was fueled by a relentless pattern of forcing contested drives into heavy interior traffic. His tunnel vision in the half-court resulted in empty possessions and allowed the defense to easily leak out in transition. The sheer volume of inefficient, low-quality attempts completely tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -12.6
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Scottie Barnes 35.3m
14
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite help-side defense and high-motor hustle plays were entirely undone by poor offensive execution and spacing issues. He continually settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers rather than pressuring the rim, stalling the offensive engine. This stark offensive inefficiency dragged a stellar defensive performance into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ja'Kobe Walter 32.3m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Phenomenal defensive activity and relentless pursuit of loose balls defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's passing lanes, turning deflections into immediate transition opportunities. Taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense perfectly complemented his elite defensive motor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 28.2m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Exceptional screen-setting and elite positional rebounding drove a highly positive overall impact. He consistently sealed off his man in the pick-and-roll, creating massive driving lanes for the guards. This unselfish interior dirty work, combined with disciplined rim protection, anchored the team's success during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.5

High-IQ offensive spacing and timely weak-side defensive rotations drove a robust positive impact. He consistently drew opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up crucial cutting lanes for his teammates. Disciplined closeouts on the perimeter further showcased a highly effective, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Ruthless efficiency around the basket powered a massive positive impact, easily overcoming his struggles in pick-and-roll defense. He established deep post position early in the shot clock, converting high-percentage looks that anchored the offense. The sheer gravity of his interior scoring completely masked his slow lateral rotations on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 16.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Defensive lapses and a complete lack of off-ball movement severely punished his overall impact score. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, surrendering easy layups that swung momentum. Without any hustle plays to compensate, his minutes were a clear net negative for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A brief rotational cameo yielded a neutral impact, sustained entirely by energetic closeouts and hustle in transition. He maximized his short stint by staying disciplined within the defensive scheme and avoiding costly gambles. Lack of offensive involvement kept his net rating hovering right at the baseline.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -130.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
28
pts
19
reb
1
ast
Impact
+32.6

Dominated the interior with a relentless pattern of rim-running and offensive rebounding that overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. His highly efficient shot selection inside the restricted area drove a massive positive impact. Anchoring the paint defensively with timely contests further cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +24.1
Defense -5.8
Turnovers -3.5
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
28
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.5

High-volume isolation scoring masked defensive liabilities that severely capped his overall impact. He consistently hunted favorable mismatches in the half-court, but a persistent lack of weak-side rotations gave those points right back. The heavy offensive load ultimately yielded a negligible net positive due to this one-way effort.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nique Clifford 32.3m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.7

Exceptional hustle and loose-ball recoveries could not salvage an impact score cratered by poor shot selection. Forcing contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock repeatedly fueled opponent transition opportunities. His high-energy defensive rotations were completely negated by offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 23.1m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

A sharp decline in offensive assertiveness led to empty possessions and a heavily negative net rating. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage, completely disrupting his usual interior rhythm. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to command defensive attention stalled the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Carter 22.8m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Perimeter defensive pressure drove his positive value, compensating for a string of forced, low-quality jumpers. He consistently disrupted the opposing ball-handler at the point of attack, generating key stops during crucial second-half stretches. This defensive tenacity kept his overall impact in the green despite erratic offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 29.2m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.4

Errant decision-making in transition negated a surprisingly stout defensive effort, dragging his net value slightly below zero. He forced several ill-advised passes into traffic that directly ignited opponent fast breaks. While his on-ball defensive containment was a bright spot, the live-ball turnovers proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A balanced two-way effort resulted in a completely neutral overall impact, as strong perimeter closeouts were offset by offensive passivity. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the half-court flow. His disciplined defensive closeouts prevented bleeding, but the lack of offensive aggression capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

Impact slipped into the red due to sluggish defensive rotations and an inability to protect the weak side of the rim. Opponents consistently exploited his drop coverage in pick-and-roll situations, generating uncontested floaters. A lack of offensive gravity further compounded these defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -5.4
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined his minutes and drove a highly positive impact despite severe offensive struggles. He completely locked down his primary assignment on the perimeter, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could develop. That elite defensive disruption far outweighed the damage of his missed shots.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +7.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Brief rotational minutes were marred by defensive targeting, as opponents immediately attacked him in isolation. He failed to navigate off-ball screens effectively, surrendering open perimeter looks that quickly damaged his net rating. A lack of offensive touches meant he couldn't shoot his way out of the defensive deficit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0