Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Podziemski Hard 9/15 +5.9
Porziņģis Hard 4/12 -1.5
Santos Hard 3/10 -2.5
Melton Hard 5/9 +4.3
Horford 4/8 +1.6
Curry Hard 3/8 -0.3
Payton II 5/6 +4.3
Leons 2/3 +1.9
Green 2/3 +1.6
Bassey Hard 1/3 -0.5

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Carter Hard 11/18 +11.3
Plowden Hard 7/16 +0.9
Clifford Hard 5/14 -0.6
Raynaud Hard 9/12 +8.7
Achiuwa Hard 2/9 -4.3
Monk Hard 4/6 +5.7
Cardwell 3/6 +0.7
McDermott Hard 0/5 -4.6
Hayes Hard 0/3 -2.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
SAC
39/81 Field Goals 41/89
48.1% Field Goal % 46.1%
14/36 3-Pointers 17/44
38.9% 3-Point % 38.6%
26/28 Free Throws 25/34
92.9% Free Throw % 73.5%
63.2% True Shooting % 59.6%
43 Total Rebounds 58
6 Offensive 16
30 Defensive 33
30 Assists 25
1.88 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
16 Turnovers 16
12 Steals 10
4 Blocks 6
22 Fouls 21
44 Points in Paint 42
12 Fast Break Pts 12
14 Points off TOs 19
11 Second Chance Pts 21
52 Bench Points 27
11 Largest Lead 15
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Devin Carter
29 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 34.6 MIN
+24.82
2
Brandin Podziemski
30 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 32.2 MIN
+22.15
3
Daeqwon Plowden
20 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 37.1 MIN
+19.66
4
Maxime Raynaud
23 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 39.1 MIN
+18.33
5
De'Anthony Melton
17 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 28.0 MIN
+13.19
6
Dylan Cardwell
7 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 23.6 MIN
+12.72
7
Malevy Leons
7 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 11.8 MIN
+11.63
8
Malik Monk
11 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 9.8 MIN
+9.49
9
Stephen Curry
11 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 27.3 MIN
+8.87
10
Gary Payton II
10 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 15.2 MIN
+8.78
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 B. Podziemski Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 118–124
Q4 0:04 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–124
Q4 0:04 MISS B. Podziemski Free Throw 1 of 2 117–124
Q4 0:04 D. Cardwell shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Podziemski 2 FT) 117–124
Q4 0:09 M. Raynaud cutting DUNK (23 PTS) (N. Clifford 6 AST) 117–124
Q4 0:16 N. Clifford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 117–122
Q4 0:18 MISS B. Podziemski 7' driving floating bank Shot 117–122
Q4 0:25 N. Clifford Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 117–122
Q4 0:25 N. Clifford Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 117–121
Q4 0:25 G. Santos personal FOUL (4 PF) (Clifford 2 FT) 117–120
Q4 0:44 B. Podziemski 3PT fadeaway (29 PTS) (P. Spencer 4 AST) 117–120
Q4 0:46 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–120
Q4 0:49 MISS P. Spencer 28' 3PT 114–120
Q4 0:54 D. Cardwell cutting Layup (7 PTS) (N. Clifford 5 AST) 114–120
Q4 1:06 N. Clifford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 114–118

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

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 39.1m
23
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.9

Surgical efficiency around the basket fueled a major scoring surge, though his overall impact was surprisingly muted by a lack of hustle plays. He dominated his individual matchups in the post, consistently finding the soft spots in the defense. However, slow transition recoveries and poor screen navigation slightly capped his overall ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +19.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nique Clifford 37.9m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Inefficient volume shooting and a lack of defensive resistance resulted in a heavily negative overall impact. He consistently settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, bailing the defense out and stalling the offensive flow. The scoring totals masked how much his poor shot selection hurt the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Daeqwon Plowden 37.1m
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.0

High-volume shooting and relentless effort on the glass drove a solid positive impact, even if the perimeter efficiency was slightly erratic. He broke out of his recent scoring baseline by aggressively attacking closeouts and generating second-chance opportunities. Strong defensive metrics indicate he successfully leveraged his length to bother shooters on the wing.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +10.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Carter 34.6m
29
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+25.6

An absolute two-way masterclass defined by lethal perimeter shot-making and elite point-of-attack defense. He doubled his usual scoring output by punishing drop coverages and generating extra possessions through high-level hustle plays. His ability to hit momentum-shifting transition threes completely broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +22.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Brutal offensive execution completely overshadowed an otherwise stellar defensive performance. He forced up bad looks from the perimeter and failed to finish inside, killing offensive momentum and causing a massive drop from his recent scoring averages. The defensive impact was elite, but the empty possessions on the other end were too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Exceptional hustle metrics and disciplined rim running anchored a highly effective rotation stint. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor and generated crucial extra possessions through sheer physical effort on the glass. By strictly adhering to high-percentage looks, he maintained his streak of efficient interior play.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +7.9
Defense -2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Continued shooting woes and an inability to pressure the rim kept his impact in the red. Opposing guards completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down spacing and forced teammates into difficult isolation situations. While he didn't make glaring mistakes defensively, his offensive limitations made him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.1

A disastrous shooting performance combined with defensive liabilities led to a cratered net impact. He failed to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, completely neutralizing his value as a floor spacer. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, compounding the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 9.8m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Provided a massive spark in limited minutes through decisive, highly efficient perimeter shot creation. He immediately attacked defensive mismatches, maintaining his recent hot streak by knocking down contested looks off the dribble. His quick-trigger scoring forced the defense to adjust their rotation patterns almost instantly.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
30
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.4

Elite offensive efficiency defined this massive positive impact, fueled by decisive drives and confident perimeter execution. He capitalized on defensive rotations by attacking closeouts aggressively, resulting in a massive scoring surge above his baseline. His ability to consistently generate high-quality looks kept the half-court offense humming all night.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +25.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephen Curry 27.3m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Uncharacteristic offensive passivity and missed perimeter looks resulted in a negative net impact, despite surprisingly robust defensive metrics. Opponents successfully top-sided him off screens, denying him the ball and forcing a massive drop in his usual scoring volume. The gravity was still there, but the lack of actual shot attempts prevented him from punishing the defensive coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Gui Santos 26.9m
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.3

Significant drop-off in scoring aggression compared to his recent hot streak drove his negative overall impact. Despite solid defensive metrics and active hands generating hustle points, his inability to finish around the rim stalled offensive momentum. He struggled to find his rhythm against physical closeouts.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Poor shot selection and clunky perimeter execution cratered his overall impact despite strong rim protection numbers. Settling for heavily contested mid-range jumpers broke the offensive flow, leading to a sharp scoring regression from his recent averages. His defensive length altered shots inside, but the empty offensive possessions heavily outweighed those stops.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Draymond Green 23.6m
7
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.6

Passive offensive involvement and a surprising lack of characteristic hustle plays dragged down his net rating. While he operated efficiently as a connector, his reluctance to look at the basket allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. The overall negative score reflects a game where his usual defensive anchoring couldn't overcome the spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, his confident perimeter stroke provided a crucial offensive lifeline. He balanced his scoring surge with active hands in the passing lanes, generating deflections that fueled positive hustle metrics. The combination of timely weak-side rotations and improved shot quality resulted in a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Al Horford 17.8m
10
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Floor-spacing from the center position was the primary driver of his positive offensive impact, pulling opposing bigs away from the rim. However, a complete lack of rebounding presence limited his overall effectiveness and allowed second-chance opportunities. His veteran positioning on defense partially mitigated the damage done on the glass.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless off-ball movement and elite point-of-attack defense drove a highly efficient stint. He lived in the dunker spot and punished sleeping defenders with timely backdoor cuts, maintaining his recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing. High hustle metrics highlight how effectively he blew up opponent dribble hand-offs to create transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Finished with a perfectly neutral impact as his interior presence was offset by a dip in his usually elite finishing efficiency. He struggled to convert through contact around the rim, snapping a streak of highly efficient shooting nights. Still, his fundamental screen-setting and positional rebounding kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Pat Spencer 13.9m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.0

A steep drop in scoring aggression and missed perimeter looks tanked his overall impact score. While he moved the ball adequately, his inability to threaten the defense individually allowed opponents to cheat off him and clog the paint. The lack of defensive resistance further compounded his struggles during this stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malevy Leons 11.8m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maximized a brief rotation stint by combining flawless shot selection with highly disruptive defensive rotations. His sudden scoring explosion caught the defense off guard, but it was his active closeouts and weak-side rim deterrence that truly spiked his impact score. He completely shifted the momentum by turning defensive stops into immediate transition offense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Managed to post a slight positive impact in garbage time purely through energetic rebounding and defensive positioning. Despite missing his only look, he didn't force the issue and stayed within the flow of the offense. His brief appearance was defined by crashing the glass hard from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0