Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 16/22 +12.1
Champagnie Hard 5/15 -1.4
Harper 6/11 +0.3
Johnson Hard 3/11 -3.2
Castle 4/9 +0.6
Vassell Hard 2/8 -3.2
Barnes Hard 4/7 +3.3
Fox 4/7 +1.6
Bryant Hard 0/3 -3.4

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Williams 8/18 -0.5
Spencer Hard 6/15 -0.3
Cryer Hard 6/12 +2.3
Yurtseven 6/9 +2.7
Curry Hard 5/8 +4.8
Podziemski Hard 4/8 +2.1
Green Hard 4/7 +5.0
Leons 2/6 -2.3
Richard 1/3 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
GSW
44/93 Field Goals 42/86
47.3% Field Goal % 48.8%
15/47 3-Pointers 14/35
31.9% 3-Point % 40.0%
24/30 Free Throws 15/18
80.0% Free Throw % 83.3%
59.8% True Shooting % 60.2%
58 Total Rebounds 44
13 Offensive 7
35 Defensive 32
34 Assists 29
2.27 Assist/TO Ratio 1.93
14 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 6
6 Blocks 3
20 Fouls 26
52 Points in Paint 44
16 Fast Break Pts 10
20 Points off TOs 19
19 Second Chance Pts 8
37 Bench Points 48
26 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Victor Wembanyama
41 PTS · 18 REB · 3 AST · 28.9 MIN
+44.54
2
Harrison Barnes
13 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 27.2 MIN
+16.16
3
De'Aaron Fox
11 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 24.7 MIN
+14.84
4
Omer Yurtseven
17 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 29.0 MIN
+14.12
5
Stephon Castle
15 PTS · 7 REB · 11 AST · 32.7 MIN
+13.36
6
Brandin Podziemski
14 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 17.2 MIN
+12.19
7
Draymond Green
14 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 20.7 MIN
+12.02
8
Nate Williams
18 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 46.6 MIN
+10.56
9
Seth Curry
12 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 10.1 MIN
+10.07
10
Dylan Harper
13 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 23.6 MIN
+8.71
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 127–113
Q4 0:25 M. Leons putback Layup (5 PTS) 127–113
Q4 0:25 M. Leons REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 127–111
Q4 0:26 MISS M. Leons driving Layup 127–111
Q4 0:33 O. Yurtseven REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 127–111
Q4 0:36 MISS J. Champagnie 26' 3PT 127–111
Q4 0:57 P. Spencer 28' 3PT pullup (14 PTS) (M. Leons 5 AST) 127–111
Q4 1:08 O. Yurtseven REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 127–108
Q4 1:11 MISS J. Champagnie 26' 3PT 127–108
Q4 1:15 S. Castle REBOUND (Off:4 Def:3) 127–108
Q4 1:18 MISS C. Bryant 3PT 127–108
Q4 1:29 C. Bryant REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 127–108
Q4 1:30 MISS D. Harper 25' 3PT 127–108
Q4 1:47 N. Williams 26' 3PT (18 PTS) (P. Spencer 7 AST) 127–108
Q4 1:59 J. Champagnie 26' 3PT (15 PTS) (S. Castle 11 AST) 127–105

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
S Nate Williams 46.6m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Volume-heavy approach bogged down the offense, but his negative impact was truly driven by getting targeted in the pick-and-roll. Strong hustle on 50/50 balls wasn't enough to offset the damage caused by his late closeouts and costly reaching fouls.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Will Richard 25.6m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.5

Hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to recover and reset without penalty. A handful of blown switches in semi-transition and poor transition fouls further compounded a highly ineffective stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LJ Cryer 23.5m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Bled value by constantly dying on screens, forcing the frontcourt into disadvantageous emergency switches that led to easy drop-offs. Although he found some success in isolation, his lazy entry passes resulted in deflections that killed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 20.7m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Flipped the script by confidently knocking down perimeter looks when the defense dared him to shoot. His masterful orchestration of the weak-side defense blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.8

Thrived as a connective playmaker, instantly punishing defensive rotations with rapid-fire extra passes. His knack for executing timely digs in the post and drawing offensive fouls provided immense hidden value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 38.0m
14
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Dominated the ball to a fault, frequently pounding the air out of it before settling for heavily contested floaters. While his active hands generated a few deflections, his poor shot quality acted as live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
Malevy Leons 29.4m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.5

Failed to finish through contact, repeatedly leaving points on the board when attacking the basket. Despite a relentless motor that secured several extra possessions, his tendency to commit silly over-the-back fouls neutralized his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Carved out deep post position with ease, sealing off smaller defenders to create high-percentage finishing angles. His bone-crushing screens freed up the guards, though occasional struggles defending in space kept his impact from soaring even higher.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Seth Curry 10.1m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Injected instant spacing into the lineup, punishing defenders the moment they lost track of him in semi-transition. His relentless off-ball motion caused multiple defensive miscommunications, creating a ripple effect of open driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 32.7m
15
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+5.0

Creative passing sequences were completely overshadowed by sloppy ball security that fed the opponent's transition game. Even with relentless point-of-attack defense, his tendency to force skip passes into traffic severely capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
41
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
+44.5

Completely broke the opponent's offensive scheme by erasing shots at the rim and deterring drives with sheer length. Offensively, his catch radius on lobs and soft touch in the paint made him an unstoppable focal point.

Shooting
FG 16/22 (72.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +36.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 27.8m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.5

Impact cratered due to a string of careless live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent fast breaks. While he managed to contest a few shots on the perimeter, his tendency to bite on pump fakes led to costly foul trouble that dragged down his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Trigger-happy approach from the outside backfired, but it was his costly offensive fouls and illegal screens that truly tanked his value. Getting repeatedly blown by on the perimeter exacerbated his negative footprint, forcing the defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 24.7m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Dictated the tempo by relentlessly attacking the seams of the defense before they could establish their half-court shell. Active hands at the point of attack disrupted opposing sets, fueling a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +56.6
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.2

Punished defensive lapses by relocating perfectly along the perimeter for uncontested looks. A masterclass in mistake-free basketball, he avoided cheap fouls and consistently boxed out larger opponents to secure the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Bully-ball drives repeatedly hit a wall, resulting in wild attempts through multiple defenders. Occasional bursts of energy on the offensive glass couldn't mask his tendency to lose his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 23.6m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

Operated as a stabilizing force by making quick, decisive reads and refusing to force the issue against set defenses. His disciplined closeouts and flawless rotational timing ensured the second unit maintained its structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.9

Failed to bend the defense, allowing his matchup to freely roam and clog driving lanes. Despite battling admirably for loose balls, his complete lack of offensive utility dragged down the lineup's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

A brief and disjointed stint where his lack of shooting gravity allowed the defense to pack the paint. While he executed drop coverage adequately, his offensive invisibility made it impossible to sustain positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -61.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1