Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Raynaud 7/14 -0.5
Achiuwa 6/14 -2.3
Clifford 4/14 -5.2
Hayes Hard 6/13 +2.7
McDermott Hard 5/13 +0.8
Plowden Hard 4/7 +4.1
Carter 3/5 +0.9
Cardwell Open 4/4 +2.4
Monk 2/3 +0.9

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Spencer Hard 5/16 -2.5
Melton Hard 7/12 +6.1
Curry Hard 5/12 +3.9
Bassey Open 7/12 -0.1
Podziemski Hard 5/11 +2.9
Payton II Open 5/7 +0.9
Leons Open 1/5 -4.8
Curry Hard 2/4 +2.1
Green Hard 0/3 -3.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
GSW
41/87 Field Goals 37/82
47.1% Field Goal % 45.1%
11/31 3-Pointers 17/38
35.5% 3-Point % 44.7%
12/17 Free Throws 19/24
70.6% Free Throw % 79.2%
55.6% True Shooting % 59.4%
49 Total Rebounds 52
13 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 26
22 Assists 27
1.47 Assist/TO Ratio 1.59
14 Turnovers 17
9 Steals 10
6 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 15
56 Points in Paint 36
10 Fast Break Pts 6
22 Points off TOs 19
15 Second Chance Pts 22
46 Bench Points 52
3 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Charles Bassey
14 PTS · 12 REB · 0 AST · 27.2 MIN
+22.44
2
Gary Payton II
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 24.6 MIN
+20.88
3
De'Anthony Melton
21 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+19.91
4
Killian Hayes
18 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 31.7 MIN
+15.45
5
Dylan Cardwell
8 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 25.9 MIN
+14.72
6
Brandin Podziemski
20 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 29.5 MIN
+13.82
7
Maxime Raynaud
17 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+12.05
8
Stephen Curry
17 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 25.0 MIN
+10.8
9
Doug McDermott
16 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 28.9 MIN
+10.15
10
Daeqwon Plowden
11 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 26.4 MIN
+9.54
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 S. Curry REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 105–110
Q4 0:17 MISS D. McDermott 26' pullup 3PT 105–110
Q4 0:28 D. Melton Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 105–110
Q4 0:28 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–109
Q4 0:28 MISS D. Melton Free Throw 1 of 2 105–109
Q4 0:28 K. Hayes take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Melton 2 FT) 105–109
Q4 0:31 K. Hayes Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 105–109
Q4 0:31 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–109
Q4 0:31 MISS K. Hayes Free Throw 1 of 2 104–109
Q4 0:31 B. Podziemski personal FOUL (2 PF) (Hayes 2 FT) 104–109
Q4 0:37 P. Achiuwa REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 104–109
Q4 0:41 MISS S. Curry 27' step back 3PT 104–109
Q4 0:57 TEAM defensive REBOUND 104–109
Q4 0:57 MISS D. McDermott 28' 3PT 104–109
Q4 1:04 D. McDermott REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 104–109

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
S Pat Spencer 40.6m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brutal volume-shooting performance absolutely cratered his net impact, as he squandered possessions with contested mid-range pull-ups. While he provided a respectable effort fighting through screens on defense, the sheer number of empty offensive trips was too much to overcome. His insistence on playing hero-ball late in the shot clock directly fueled the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

High-IQ connective passing and relentless off-ball movement kept his impact score firmly in the green. He consistently generated extra possessions by diving for loose balls, perfectly complementing his steady perimeter marksmanship. A crucial sequence of back-to-back drawn charges in the third quarter completely shifted the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.0

Snapping out of a severe shooting slump, his elite shot selection and decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics drove a massive positive rating. He punished defensive drop coverages relentlessly, forcing the opposition to completely alter their pick-and-roll scheme. This sudden injection of perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes that had been clogged for weeks.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 27.1m
1
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-17.2

Completely abandoning his scoring threat allowed defenders to freely double-team the perimeter, destroying his overall offensive value. Even with his trademark defensive communication and solid rotational help, playing 4-on-5 on the other end proved mathematically disastrous. Opponents blatantly ignored him at the top of the key, bogging down the entire half-court system.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Malevy Leons 21.0m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.4

Offensive invisibility and poor finishing around the rim resulted in a heavily negative impact score. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, allowing smaller guards to secure uncontested rebounds in his vicinity. A critical blown layup in the second quarter epitomized a night where he was simply outmatched by the speed of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
14
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.4

Dominating the interior with sheer physicality, he posted a monstrous impact score by erasing opponent attempts at the rim. He capitalized on a massive usage spike by rolling hard to the basket, punishing late rotations with emphatic finishes. His ability to single-handedly shut down the paint during a long fourth-quarter stretch was the defining factor of the night.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense +5.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

A surprisingly pedestrian impact score stemmed from uncharacteristic struggles to separate from top-locking defenders. Though his mere presence warped the defensive shell and created gravity, clanking several wide-open looks off the dribble limited his overall ceiling. He managed to stay in the positive by executing crisp defensive rotations, but the offensive magic was largely contained.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.8

Elite point-of-attack harassment and perfectly timed baseline cuts translated into a dominant two-way rating. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, turning deflected passes into immediate fast-break opportunities. His knack for slipping behind sleeping defenders for easy lob finishes showcased an incredible feel for the game's geometry.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Seth Curry 16.3m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Being repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions neutralized any value he provided as a floor spacer. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him on switches, easily blowing past his closeouts to collapse the defense. While his outside stroke looked crisp, the defensive bleeding was simply too severe to keep him on the floor in crucial moments.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 35.5m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Errant shot selection completely tanked his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. The defensive energy and active hands in the passing lanes were commendable, but they couldn't mathematically rescue the possessions wasted by clanking long-range jumpers. Opponents blatantly sagged off him down the stretch, stalling the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

A stark departure from his recent hyper-efficient finishing streak, as forced attempts in the paint cratered his offensive value. While his rim protection metrics remained robust, the empty possessions from contested floaters gave the opposition too many transition opportunities. His inability to punish mismatches on the block ultimately doomed his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Daeqwon Plowden 26.4m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite finding a rhythm from the perimeter, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive passivity on the wing. A lack of secondary hustle plays meant he couldn't offset the damage when his assignment consistently beat him off the dribble. His spot-up shooting provided spacing, but he was targeted repeatedly in isolation during the second half.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 26.2m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Keeping his momentum going as a reliable scoring valve, he managed a slightly positive rating by converting crucial interior touches. However, a glaring lack of loose-ball recoveries and secondary hustle capped his ceiling in this matchup. He anchored the second-unit offense effectively, though he left meat on the bone by failing to secure contested long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Carter 20.6m
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.6

Fading into the background offensively, his lack of aggression resulted in a surprisingly negative net rating. He passed up multiple open driving lanes, forcing teammates into late-clock bail-out situations that dragged down the unit's efficiency. Even with solid point-of-attack defense, his reluctance to initiate contact rendered him a net minus.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.5

An absolute masterclass in disruptive perimeter defense fueled a massive surge in his overall impact rating. Breaking out of a brutal offensive slump, he leveraged his active hands to create live-ball turnovers that ignited the transition attack. His relentless screen navigation against the opposing primary ball-handler set the tone for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Chucking from the perimeter ultimately harmed the team's offensive flow, dragging his net score into the red despite a noticeable scoring spike. He was repeatedly hunted on defense during switch actions, bleeding points that negated his floor-spacing value. A particularly rough stretch of forced transition threes in the third quarter completely stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Flawless execution around the basket drove a stellar positive rating, as he refused to waste a single offensive touch. He dominated the interior by sealing off defenders early, creating massive passing windows for his guards. This disciplined approach to rim-running and positional rebounding perfectly anchored the frontcourt without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Malik Monk 10.6m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Limited minutes prevented him from finding any real rhythm, leading to a muted impact score. He flashed some decent rotational awareness on the defensive end, but couldn't generate his usual downhill rim pressure. A brief second-quarter stint was marred by defensive miscommunications that quickly sent him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2