Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 164 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sengun 10/19 +0.2
Durant Hard 10/17 +7.0
Smith Jr. Hard 9/12 +11.4
Thompson Open 8/11 +3.1
Eason Hard 1/9 -6.9
Sheppard Hard 4/8 +1.8
Holiday Hard 2/3 +2.9
Tate Hard 0/1 -0.9

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 11/21 +8.5
Santos 5/15 -4.2
Podziemski 7/11 +3.4
Payton II 6/11 -1.1
Porziņģis 3/9 -3.7
Melton Hard 2/4 +2.0
Green Open 3/4 +1.7
Spencer Hard 2/4 +1.0
Curry Hard 1/3 +0.3
Bassey Open 2/2 +1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
GSW
44/80 Field Goals 42/84
55.0% Field Goal % 50.0%
13/29 3-Pointers 14/40
44.8% 3-Point % 35.0%
16/19 Free Throws 18/20
84.2% Free Throw % 90.0%
66.2% True Shooting % 62.5%
44 Total Rebounds 40
8 Offensive 6
30 Defensive 25
30 Assists 34
2.14 Assist/TO Ratio 3.40
13 Turnovers 10
4 Steals 7
7 Blocks 3
16 Fouls 19
54 Points in Paint 52
8 Fast Break Pts 8
14 Points off TOs 23
9 Second Chance Pts 14
10 Bench Points 61
15 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kevin Durant
31 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 37.2 MIN
+25.24
2
Stephen Curry
29 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 26.1 MIN
+21.91
3
Alperen Sengun
24 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 36.9 MIN
+20.43
4
Jabari Smith Jr.
23 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 31.6 MIN
+16.77
5
Brandin Podziemski
18 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 36.8 MIN
+15.0
6
Amen Thompson
18 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 39.5 MIN
+14.95
7
Reed Sheppard
11 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 26.1 MIN
+12.23
8
Draymond Green
7 PTS · 6 REB · 12 AST · 34.0 MIN
+11.58
9
Gary Payton II
14 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 25.3 MIN
+11.39
10
Pat Spencer
7 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 12.2 MIN
+9.44
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–116
Q4 0:02 MISS S. Curry 30' step back 3PT 117–116
Q4 0:11 A. Sengun cutting Layup (24 PTS) (K. Durant 8 AST) 117–116
Q4 0:19 A. Thompson defensive goaltending VIOLATION 115–116
Q4 0:19 G. Payton II cutting Layup (14 PTS) (D. Green 12 AST) 115–116
Q4 0:35 G. Payton II REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 115–114
Q4 0:38 MISS K. Durant 12' turnaround fadeaway Shot 115–114
Q4 0:57 S. Curry 32' 3PT (29 PTS) (G. Payton II 2 AST) 115–114
Q4 1:09 A. Sengun Free Throw 1 of 1 (22 PTS) 115–111
Q4 1:09 D. Green shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Sengun 1 FT) 114–111
Q4 1:09 A. Sengun 10' Jump Shot (21 PTS) (K. Durant 7 AST) 114–111
Q4 1:27 S. Curry cutting finger roll Layup (26 PTS) (D. Green 11 AST) 112–111
Q4 1:35 D. Melton REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 112–109
Q4 1:38 MISS J. Smith Jr. 3PT 112–109
Q4 1:55 G. Payton II cutting Layup (12 PTS) (S. Curry 4 AST) 112–109

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
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.6

Relentless energy defined this outing, with massive hustle metrics (+4.8) generating vital extra possessions. His smart shot selection and gritty point-of-attack defense kept the team afloat, ensuring a positive impact despite carrying a heavy minute load.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 34.0m
7
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+1.3

High-level offensive orchestration and defensive anchoring were surprisingly undercut by a negative overall impact, likely pointing to a high volume of costly turnovers. While he found cutters well, risky passes into traffic gave away crucial possessions and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gui Santos 32.1m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Heavy shot volume coupled with poor execution resulted in a massive drain on the team's offensive efficiency. Even a highly disruptive defensive performance (+3.9) couldn't rescue his overall rating from the damage caused by clanking so many contested perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -5.9
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

Despite knocking down a couple of timely perimeter shots, his overall floor presence yielded a negative return. Defensive miscommunications and a failure to contain dribble penetration during his shifts allowed the opposition to capitalize on easy driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Defensive vulnerabilities (-2.7) and a cold shooting night combined to drag his overall impact into the negative. Opponents consistently targeted his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, while his inability to stretch the floor effectively compounded the team's spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense -4.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
29
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.2

Relentless off-ball movement and elite shot-making gravity fractured the opposing defense, driving a massive +11.3 total impact. His perimeter efficiency created unparalleled spacing, while surprisingly stout point-of-attack positioning (+2.5 Def) rounded out a stellar two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 40.4%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +21.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Surprisingly poor defensive metrics (-1.9) nearly erased the value of his elite interior finishing. He managed to stay in the green by expertly cutting to the basket and converting high-percentage looks at the rim, even as he struggled to navigate off-ball screens on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Seth Curry 12.7m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

A lack of peripheral contributions severely limited his effectiveness during a short stint off the bench. Because he couldn't get his outside shot to fall consistently, his one-dimensional floor-spacing role failed to generate any real offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 12.2m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Smart, mistake-free basketball in limited minutes yielded a highly positive return on investment. His ability to hit timely shots and execute defensive rotations (+2.6) provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Perfect execution in a highly specialized role drove a fantastic per-minute impact rating. He maximized his short stint by sealing off the paint defensively (+2.2) and finishing every dump-off pass he received around the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Barely had time to break a sweat in this brief appearance, resulting in a nearly neutral impact score. He provided a quick burst of defensive energy but was otherwise completely uninvolved in the offensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -103.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.5m
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.1

Despite excellent finishing at the rim and strong individual defensive metrics, a negative overall impact suggests hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or poor spacing. His reluctance to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, ultimately stalling out several half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 37.2m
31
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+21.2

Elite overall impact was driven by a highly efficient scoring surge that punished defensive mismatches all night. Strong defensive metrics (+3.5) and dual-threat playmaking further amplified his value, proving he could dominate without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +25.6
Creation +4.0
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 36.9m
24
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.8

Operating as the central offensive hub, his interior scoring and distribution generated massive positive value (+21.2 Box). While a handful of forced perimeter shots slightly dampened his efficiency, his defensive positioning and consistent paint pressure more than made up the difference.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -4.2
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
23
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.6

Capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities from deep anchored a highly positive impact score. His exceptional hustle metrics (+3.8) provided crucial extra possessions that elevated his overall value well beyond just his scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +20.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -5.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 26.1m
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Defensive disruption was the primary engine behind his positive impact, as he consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his ability to generate stops and secure loose balls (+2.5 Hustle) kept his floor incredibly high.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Extreme passivity on offense limited his usefulness, as he passed up several open looks to defer to teammates. Consequently, his low-volume efficiency couldn't offset the defensive breakdowns that occurred during his shifts, leading to a net negative result.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tari Eason 19.3m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.2

Severe shot-selection issues cratered his impact score, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses. While his standard defensive energy remained intact, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions made him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring -3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 12.4m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

Pure energy and hustle plays (+3.0) weren't enough to salvage a stint defined by offensive invisibility. By failing to attempt a single field goal, his defender was able to freely roam and clog the passing lanes, severely bogging down the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Struggled to make any tangible mark on the game during his brief minutes, offering zero scoring gravity. The lack of offensive threat allowed the opposition to sag off him completely, stalling out half-court sets and driving his impact score into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Barely saw the floor in a highly limited rotational stint, preventing him from establishing any real rhythm. The slight negative impact is mostly noise from a tiny sample size where he failed to register any meaningful defensive stops or rim runs.

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 3.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0