Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHI lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
CHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 180 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker 9/22 -0.8
Green 11/21 -0.3
Brooks Hard 6/15 -1.2
Gillespie Hard 3/11 -2.5
Williams Open 6/8 +0.8
Goodwin 5/5 +5.9
Ighodaro Open 3/3 +1.8
O'Neale Hard 1/2 +1.0
Allen Hard 1/2 +1.0

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Jones Open 12/20 -0.8
Sexton 5/15 -4.4
Miller Open 7/14 -2.2
Okoro 5/10 -1.3
Yabusele 3/9 -2.4
Dillingham 4/8 -0.7
Williams 2/8 -5.3
McClung 2/4 -0.2
Kawamura Hard 1/2 +0.7
Olbrich Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
CHI
45/89 Field Goals 41/91
50.6% Field Goal % 45.1%
13/32 3-Pointers 10/39
40.6% 3-Point % 25.6%
17/22 Free Throws 18/23
77.3% Free Throw % 78.3%
60.8% True Shooting % 54.4%
47 Total Rebounds 59
11 Offensive 14
30 Defensive 32
22 Assists 26
1.38 Assist/TO Ratio 1.37
15 Turnovers 18
10 Steals 10
6 Blocks 2
22 Fouls 23
52 Points in Paint 62
6 Fast Break Pts 28
24 Points off TOs 15
15 Second Chance Pts 16
24 Bench Points 28
13 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tre Jones
29 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 31.1 MIN
+24.81
2
Devin Booker
30 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 35.7 MIN
+17.95
3
Jordan Goodwin
12 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 24.4 MIN
+14.79
4
Mark Williams
14 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 25.7 MIN
+14.47
5
Oso Ighodaro
6 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 22.3 MIN
+12.0
6
Leonard Miller
17 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 32.9 MIN
+11.75
7
Grayson Allen
6 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 16.2 MIN
+10.72
8
Dillon Brooks
15 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 33.5 MIN
+10.47
9
Collin Sexton
18 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 30.7 MIN
+9.35
10
Collin Gillespie
9 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 24.2 MIN
+8.84
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 PHX shot clock Team TURNOVER 120–110
Q4 0:23 M. Williams REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 120–110
Q4 0:26 MISS I. Okoro 26' running pullup 3PT 120–110
Q4 0:29 I. Okoro REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 120–110
Q4 0:32 MISS J. Green Free Throw 2 of 2 120–110
Q4 0:32 J. Green Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 120–110
Q4 0:32 C. Sexton personal FOUL (5 PF) (Green 2 FT) 119–110
Q4 0:33 G. Yabusele tip Layup (8 PTS) 119–110
Q4 0:33 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 119–108
Q4 0:35 MISS T. Jones driving Layup 119–108
Q4 0:40 M. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 119–108
Q4 0:40 M. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 118–108
Q4 0:40 C. Sexton personal FOUL (4 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 117–108
Q4 0:40 C. Gillespie STEAL (1 STL) 117–108
Q4 0:40 C. Sexton lost ball TURNOVER (5 TO) 117–108

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

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 36.5m
10
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Missed open looks from deep severely cramped the floor and dragged his overall rating into the red. While his point-of-attack defense and transition hustle were excellent, his perimeter shooting woes allowed defenders to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.8
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Leonard Miller 32.9m
17
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

High offensive usage masked a generally lethargic defensive effort that bled points on the other end. A lack of high-motor plays and poor weak-side rotations ultimately resulted in a negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +11.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.8
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than utilizing his physical frame destroyed his offensive efficiency. Sluggish transition recoveries and minimal loose-ball engagement further compounded a disastrous overall shift.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tre Jones 31.1m
29
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.1

Masterful orchestration of the offense and surgical mid-range execution drove an overwhelmingly dominant performance. By consistently breaking down his primary matchup without turning the ball over, he generated massive positive value across every single metric.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -5.4
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Collin Sexton 30.7m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Forcing drives into heavy traffic broke a recent streak of high-efficiency performances, resulting in a barrage of wasted possessions. High-energy defensive pressure partially mitigated the damage, but the erratic shot selection ultimately left him in the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +10.5
Defense +5.6
Turnovers -11.8
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.5

An ongoing crisis of confidence from the perimeter resulted in a slew of clanked jumpers that killed offensive momentum. Failing to leverage his athleticism for easier interior looks kept him mired in a severe, highly damaging slump.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to generate easy penetration, tanking his net rating. Even with a slight uptick in offensive rhythm, his inability to navigate screens or generate disruptive hustle plays proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Operated strictly as an offensive bystander, completely refusing to challenge the defense or look for his own shot. While he provided adequate positional rebounding, his extreme passivity allowed opponents to effectively play five-on-four.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mac McClung 10.6m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Attacked closeouts with sudden bursts of speed to generate high-value offensive possessions. His decisive shot selection during a short stint provided a much-needed spark and a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Injected a brief burst of offensive pacing during a quick rotational cameo. Managed to keep the offense flowing without making costly mistakes, resulting in a mildly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jalen Green 36.2m
25
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Empty offensive volume masked significant underlying issues that cratered his overall net rating. Poor perimeter shot selection and likely defensive lapses in transition completely negated his scoring production.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -14.9
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Devin Booker 35.7m
30
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.4

Offensive gravity and playmaking usage drove a high box metric, but inefficient isolation attempts limited his ceiling. A lack of defensive resistance meant he gave back much of what he generated on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.9
Turnovers -3.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 33.5m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Grinding perimeter defense and high-motor hustle plays salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive outing. His tendency to force contested jumpers suppressed his overall net rating, but his physical engagement kept him barely above water.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mark Williams 25.7m
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominant interior positioning allowed him to maintain a hyper-efficient scoring pattern at the rim. Strong verticality and active rim protection metrics combined to produce a robust positive impact across all categories.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jordan Goodwin 24.4m
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Flawless shot selection drove a massive spike in his offensive metrics, completely reversing a recent slump. Maximizing his limited touches without forcing bad looks kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries completely salvaged an otherwise abysmal shooting performance. Despite continuing a severe offensive slump, his sheer physical exertion on the defensive end kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 22.3m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite defensive positioning and switchability anchored a highly effective rotational shift. Continued his pattern of flawless interior shot selection, taking only what the defense conceded to maintain a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.9

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. Combined with sluggish defensive rotations, his inability to impact the game physically led to a severely depressed net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Thrived as a low-usage connector, utilizing active hands and smart rotations to generate outsized defensive value. By refusing to force shots during a quiet scoring night, he maximized his floor time through pure hustle and execution.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1