Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAC lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
LAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 7/14 +4.7
Podziemski Hard 3/10 -2.0
Spencer 3/8 -1.5
Porziņģis Hard 3/8 -1.6
Curry Hard 2/7 -0.5
Williams 3/7 -1.1
Bassey Open 5/6 +2.7
Santos Open 3/6 -1.3
Melton Hard 1/6 -3.9
Horford Hard 2/5 -0.1

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Mathurin 7/17 -3.0
Garland 6/17 -4.2
Collins Open 8/12 +1.8
Bogdanović Hard 6/9 +8.5
Lopez 3/8 -2.4
Miller 4/6 +1.8
Sanders 3/6 +0.4
Batum Hard 3/5 +4.0
Dunn 2/5 -1.9
Jones Jr. Hard 0/4 -3.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
LAC
36/86 Field Goals 42/89
41.9% Field Goal % 47.2%
11/39 3-Pointers 14/39
28.2% 3-Point % 35.9%
27/32 Free Throws 17/19
84.4% Free Throw % 89.5%
55.0% True Shooting % 59.1%
53 Total Rebounds 51
16 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 34
24 Assists 27
2.40 Assist/TO Ratio 2.70
9 Turnovers 10
3 Steals 3
3 Blocks 4
21 Fouls 24
46 Points in Paint 54
11 Fast Break Pts 8
14 Points off TOs 17
28 Second Chance Pts 18
55 Bench Points 71
7 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Stephen Curry
24 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 28.6 MIN
+16.71
2
Bennedict Mathurin
20 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 32.1 MIN
+15.02
3
Bogdan Bogdanović
17 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 20.7 MIN
+13.63
4
John Collins
18 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 20.7 MIN
+12.65
5
Charles Bassey
16 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 18.6 MIN
+12.09
6
Jordan Miller
14 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 29.2 MIN
+11.89
7
Kobe Sanders
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 22.7 MIN
+9.92
8
Kristaps Porziņģis
12 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 24.0 MIN
+9.55
9
Nate Williams
9 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 12.5 MIN
+7.96
10
Malevy Leons
8 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 16.8 MIN
+7.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 N. Williams 25' 3PT (9 PTS) (C. Bassey 2 AST) 110–115
Q4 0:22 W. Richard REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 107–115
Q4 0:24 MISS B. Mathurin 9' pullup Shot 107–115
Q4 0:43 M. Leons driving floating Jump Shot (8 PTS) (N. Williams 1 AST) 107–115
Q4 1:03 J. Miller 29' 3PT (14 PTS) (B. Mathurin 8 AST) 105–115
Q4 1:25 C. Bassey Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 105–112
Q4 1:25 C. Bassey Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 104–112
Q4 1:25 J. Miller loose ball personal FOUL (1 PF) (Bassey 2 FT) 103–112
Q4 1:25 TEAM offensive REBOUND 103–112
Q4 1:26 MISS W. Richard 24' 3PT 103–112
Q4 1:45 J. Miller Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 103–112
Q4 1:45 J. Miller Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 103–111
Q4 1:45 C. Bassey personal FOUL (4 PF) (Miller 2 FT) 103–110
Q4 2:02 N. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 103–110
Q4 2:02 N. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 102–110

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

LAC LA Clippers
S Darius Garland 26.6m
15
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

Strong shot-making (+3.2) and steady scoring volume (+7.4) kept his impact slightly positive despite sloppy execution. A pattern of forced passes led to a -2.4 turnover penalty, preventing his offensive orchestration from translating into a dominant rating.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 22.8m
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

A massive +10.2 hustle rating from elite rebounding positioning salvaged a game where he struggled with ball security (-3.1 TO cost). A pattern of slow defensive rotations (-1.1 penalty) limited his ceiling, though his timely shot-making (+1.8) kept him in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 22.1m
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Elite point-of-attack harassment (+4.7 defense) was completely undone by catastrophic decision-making on the other end. A pattern of reckless live-ball giveaways resulted in a -4.7 turnover penalty, neutralizing his defensive brilliance and sinking his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A brutal -2.9 scoring penalty and zero creation value highlighted a completely broken offensive showing. While he battled on the glass (+4.1 hustle), a pattern of missed rotations (-1.6 defense) compounded his spacing issues to produce a disastrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 20.7m
18
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Overwhelming offensive production (+15.3 scoring) and relentless rebounding (+8.5 hustle) easily masked a horrific defensive showing. A pattern of blown rim protections and poor positioning drove a -5.0 defensive penalty, but his sheer scoring gravity dictated the positive outcome.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +8.5
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

A dominant combination of aggressive scoring (+11.8) and relentless rebounding (+11.4 hustle) overwhelmed his defensive and turnover flaws. Despite a pattern of wild drives that yielded a -4.2 turnover cost, his elite shot-making (+3.9) powered a massive overall performance.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Highly efficient offensive execution (+12.4 scoring) carried his value through a storm of sloppy ball-handling. A pattern of telegraphing passes resulted in a severe -4.7 turnover penalty, though his ability to hit tough looks (+2.2 shot-making) preserved a positive score.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 22.7m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Clean offensive execution (+8.8 scoring) and flawless ball security (+0.0 TO cost) outweighed a highly damaging defensive stint. A pattern of getting blown by on the perimeter drove a -3.1 defensive penalty, but his timely shot-making (+2.0) kept his impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong perimeter shot-making (+2.9) and efficient scoring (+7.4) were entirely offset by his inability to generate stops. A pattern of slow closeouts resulted in a -2.0 defensive penalty, while his complete lack of playmaking (+0.0 creation) left his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

An absolute masterclass in perimeter execution drove a +14.6 scoring credit and a massive +5.3 shot-making bonus. While a pattern of defensive apathy (-0.9) and sloppy turnovers (-2.4) lingered, his pure scoring gravity completely dictated the game.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 94.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 28.6m
24
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.6

Transcendent scoring gravity (+17.7) and elite shot-making (+5.2) drove a massive positive rating despite catastrophic ball security. The staggering -7.1 turnover penalty highlights a pattern of reckless passing sequences, but his defensive engagement (+2.9) ensured he remained a dominant force.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite rebounding production (+7.2 hustle) and steady scoring volume (+8.1) kept his impact firmly in the green despite severe defensive struggles. A pattern of poor rim protection and foul trouble yielded a -3.7 defensive penalty, though his flawless ball security (+0.0 TO cost) helped stabilize his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

His performance was a mixed bag where a strong +2.5 shot-making bonus was nearly offset by a lack of defensive disruption (+0.0). A pattern of settling for tough looks yielded decent scoring metrics (+4.3), but the -1.1 turnover cost kept his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Despite generating strong value on the glass with a +3.8 hustle rating, his overall impact was dragged deep into the negative by poor ball security. A pattern of sloppy decision-making resulted in a -2.4 turnover penalty that completely erased his marginal offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Al Horford 18.7m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

A glaring lack of defensive playmaking (+0.0) combined with damaging giveaways (-2.4 TO penalty) tanked his overall rating. While he provided a modest shot-making bonus (+1.5) on the perimeter, his pattern of failing to anchor the defense or protect the basketball defined a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 20.5m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Total offensive paralysis defined this disastrous outing, as a -2.4 scoring penalty and zero creation value cratered his rating. Despite chipping in slightly on the boards (+2.5 hustle), his pattern of invisible perimeter spacing made him a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 19.4m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Defensive breakdowns (-2.2) and sloppy ball-handling (-2.4 turnover cost) completely derailed his rotational minutes. A pattern of getting targeted on the perimeter erased his modest +1.9 shot-making bonus, exposing him as a two-way liability in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Dominant interior finishing fueled a massive +14.3 scoring credit, easily overriding his severe defensive lapses. A pattern of blown coverages and foul trouble resulted in a -3.4 defensive penalty, but his sheer offensive efficiency kept his impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malevy Leons 16.8m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Highly efficient opportunistic scoring (+7.3) kept his head above water despite glaring defensive struggles. A pattern of late rotations yielded a -2.2 defensive penalty, but his flawless ball security (+0.0 TO cost) preserved a narrow positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 16.6m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Relentless work on the glass generated a massive +8.9 hustle score, serving as the primary engine for his positive impact. However, a pattern of out-of-control drives led to a steep -3.1 turnover penalty, undermining what could have been a breakout rotational performance.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

His performance was perfectly balanced between efficient offensive execution (+5.9 scoring) and damaging defensive lapses (-1.6). A pattern of converting tough looks (+2.0 shot-making) masked his inability to stay in front of his man, resulting in a completely neutral rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Seth Curry 12.2m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

An absolute void of playmaking (+0.0 creation) and defensive resistance (+0.0) turned him into a one-dimensional spacing decoy. While he earned a +1.9 shot-making bonus, his pattern of contributing nothing outside of catch-and-shoot opportunities resulted in a deeply negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

A complete lack of offensive creation (+0.0) and minimal scoring output (+1.2) left him entirely reliant on his defensive metrics to generate value. While he provided his usual point-of-attack disruption (+1.5 defense), his pattern of extreme offensive passivity ultimately dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0